PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation recognize the right to refuse, on the grounds of conscience, to do compulsory military service and instead to carry out a genuinely civilian alternative service.1033 Since 2000, attempts have been made to invoke and apply conscientious objection beyond the area of military service, with efforts made to enable the right of medical practitioners or other public officials to refuse to carry out duties inconsistent with their personal beliefs, including performing abortions, certifying divorces and performing marriage or civil registration proceedings for lesbian or gay partners.1034 In some jurisdictions, litigation has extended to refusing services such as providing wedding cakes for gay or lesbian weddings, as well as legal challenges to requirements that employer-provided health insurance include contraception. These legal challenges have enabled examination of the interface of the right to freedom of religion or belief, on the one hand, and the right to non-discrimination, on the other.1035 A series of cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom have examined the extent to which those providing services to the public can refuse to serve LGBTIQ+ persons on the basis of their religion or belief, providing a useful delineation of the issues that arise in such cases. In Bull and another v. Hall and another, the Supreme Court considered an appeal by the owners of a bed and breakfast hotel, who had been found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to provide the double room that they had booked.1036 The appellants stipulated that “out of a deep regard for marriage” double rooms were to be let only to “heterosexual married couples”. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the appellants had unlawfully discriminated against the respondents and dismissed the appeal, noting, inter alia, that the appellant’s motivation for discriminating was not relevant and that to permit a class of persons to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation would be to create a class of persons who are exempt from anti-discrimination legislation. In Ladele v. London Borough of Islington, the applicant, Lillian Ladele, argued that she had been discriminated against by her employer, the London Borough of Islington, because it had required her to officiate at same-sex civil partnership ceremonies, refusing her request to allow her not to do so, on the basis of her Christian beliefs.1037 The Supreme Court found against Ms. Ladele, noting that the London Borough of Islington had pursued a legitimate aim, that performing civil partnership ceremonies is a secular task and that Ms. Ladele’s job duties did not prevent her from practising her faith as she wished. In a more recent case from Northern Ireland, the Supreme Court considered whether a bakery had unlawfully discriminated by refusing to bake a cake with the words “Support Gay Marriage” on it.1038 The Supreme Court held that the bakery had not discriminated, finding that it would have refused to bake a cake with that slogan for any customer, not only for the applicant or for other lesbian, gay and bisexual persons. Thus, the Court distinguished the case from its earlier jurisprudence. The case has now been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. What these cases make clear is that, in situations in which services are provided to the public, they must be provided without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and other grounds), irrespective of the religious beliefs of the service provider. In his 2020 thematic report on gender-based violence and discrimination in the name of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief stated that: One area of particular concern regarding accommodations to national law for religious beliefs is the use of conscientious objection by health-care providers and institutions unwilling to perform 150 1033 For a summary of standards, see Laurel Townhead, “International standards on conscientious objection to military service”, revised edition (Geneva, Quaker United Nations Office, 2021). Available at www.quno.org/sites/default/files/resources/QUNO%20Conscientious%20 Objection%20-%20International%20Standards_Revised%202021_FINAL.pdf. 1034 See, for example, in the context of medical care, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution 1763 (2010) on the right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care. 1035 The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has stated that: “the abstractly antagonistic misconstruction of the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and equality between men and women fails to do justice to the life situation of many millions of individuals whose specific needs, wishes, claims, experiences and vulnerabilities fall into the intersection of both human rights, a problem disproportionately affecting women from religious minorities. The Special Rapporteur therefore emphasizes the significance of upholding a holistic perspective in conformity with the formula coined at the World Conference on Human Rights that ‘[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated’. Based on this holistic perspective, which deserves to be defended even in complicated and tense situations, he formulates a number of practical recommendations addressed to States and other stakeholders.” See A/68/290, p. 2. See also Michael Wiener, “Freedom of religion or belief and sexuality: tracing the evolution of the UN Special Rapporteur’s mandate practice over thirty years”, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 6, No. 2 (2017). 1036 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Bull and another v. Hall and another [2013] UKSC 73. 1037 United Kingdom Court of Appeal, Ladele v. London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 CA. 1038 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49.