A box involving a Christian bakery, that refused to make a cake with a aphorism ancillary same-sex marriage, has been referred to a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Gareth Lee attempted though unsuccessful to sequence a £36.50 cake during Ashers bakery in Belfast in May 2014.
The association declined a sequence as it was “at odds” with a beliefs.
Last year, a organisation won a interest during a UK Supreme Court, that ruled a actions were not discriminatory.
Mr Lee’s latest authorised bid will disagree that a Supreme Court “failed to give suitable weight” to him underneath a European Convention of Human Rights.
- ‘Gay cake’ quarrel QA
- Timeline: Bakery taste case
The high-profile brawl began in 2014 when a bakery refused to make a cake with a aphorism Support Gay Marriage.
Mr Lee, a happy rights activist, sued a association for taste on a drift of passionate course and domestic beliefs.
But a bakery has always insisted a conflict was to a summary on a cake, not a customer.
Ashers mislaid a initial box that was taken opposite it and a successive appeal, though in Oct 2018 a organisation won an interest during a Supreme Court.
‘Supreme Court confused lines’
In a statement, Mr Lee’s barrister pronounced a latest authorised bid “does not directly implicate a owners of Ashers bakery or plea their right to secretly reason religious/political views”.
“Instead a box will be opposite a United Kingdom, a member state of a European Court,” a matter read.
It added: “The latest hearings will try to plea that statute during a top tellurian rights justice in Europe, citing a Supreme Court unsuccessful to give suitable weight to Mr Lee’s rights underneath a European Convention of Human Rights.
“The Supreme Court statute confused a line, creates authorised doubt for all of us in Northern Ireland, and a ECHR is a suitable place to explain this issue.”
Meanwhile, Mr Lee pronounced he would quarrel for a rights of business owners to reason their possess eremite beliefs.
“I have my possess beliefs. But that’s not what my box has ever been about,” he said.
“This is about singular companies being somehow means to collect and select that business they will serve.
“It’s such a dangerous precedent.”