The law<\/p>\n
\u201c\u201d\u00a6 must protect all. It must protect the rights of the defendants to have and to manifest their religious beliefs but it also recognizes that the rights of the plaintiff not to be discriminated because of his sexual orientation must also be protected. If the plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words \u201d\u02dcsupport heterosexual marriage\u2019 the plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the defendants. This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. The defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others [93 & 94].<\/p>\n
As to the defendants\u2019 argument that Article 10 (expression) meant that they could not be compelled to express or commit themselves to a viewpoint or to appear to give support to another\u2019s views, she concluded that what the defendants had been asked to do \u201cdid not require them to support, promote or endorse any viewpoint\u201d\u009d and did not engage Article 10 \u201d\u201c and her view was that, even if she was wrong in that conclusion and Article 10 was engaged, any infringement of the defendants\u2019 rights was justified under Article 10 (2) because they were prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society and for the protection of the rights of others<\/p>\n