Having ones cake and eating it

After last weeks current affairs post comes something kind of similar but not the same this time involving food.

This story starts in Belfast, Northern Ireland at Ashers Bakery a family owned business run by Christians who operate a build a cake service which is popular for such things as weddings.
One Gareth Lee, a gay activist comes in and places an order for a cake which is initially accepted by a member of staff and paid in full for.
This is what he wanted on it.

Later on Mr Lee is contacted by the bakery and informed they cannot proceed with the order as  they profoundly disagree with the message. Note the cake makes no reference to any individual.
Mr Lee launches an equality rights case against Ashers alleging discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
This case is won at both the County Court and the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal supported by the UK Equality Commission, a government body set up to tackle discrimination.
This made its into the  UK Supreme Court  where upon it was rejected unanimously in the middle of the week.
Why, you may ask did that happen?
Actually as someone who did work in prosecution I can tell you straight. In truth there was no one single piece of evidence to suggest Mr Lee was personally deprived of a service nor refused to be served on the basis of his sexuality.
His order was rejected because in law the Ashers have no duty to make or publish anything that they had such a profound disagreement with and that would of applied regardless of the sexuality of the person who would of requested it.
The 2010 Equality Act is all about ensuring people are not prevented or given an inferior service on the basis of race, religion, disability, sex and sexuality. 
That did not happen so he had no case under the act.
What I find troubling is how it was nobody in the first two hearings actually understood the law and how it is meant to apply, something a more seasoned gay activist Peter Tatchell did and in fact supported the Ashers over.
Depressingly, I sat listening to an interview by Mr Lee after this ruling standing by his representative clearly showing he had not understood the difference between a personal refusal to serve on the basis of his sexuality and being asked to do something by him that they would not do for anyone.
One more thing, the UK taxpayer, including me is to pick up a £500,000 bill for costs for this botched  exercise.😠