I am entitled to equal rights under the Equality Act 2010. Does that mean I should be able to go into a local halal or kosher butcher and demand a pork chop? Should I be able to demand the local LGBT t-shirt and craft shops print me a t-shirt with Leviticus 18:22 spelt out in rainbow colours? A similar question was asked of Christian bakers who disagree with gay marriage for religious reasons and were asked to spell out a message contrary to their fundamental beliefs. Now the cake shop owner who stood up for their religious beliefs has been vindicated in a historic 7-2 victory in the United States Supreme Court. The ruling bucks a sinister left-wing trend to compel conduct, with extreme social justice warriors recently arguing for compelled sex under discrimination laws.

This Wedding Cake bears a message – which may amount to protected speech for the purpose of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a pivotal case in United States jurisprudence. In 2012 the eponymous cake shop was visited by two homosexuals who wished to get married and asked for a custom cake. The owner refused to create a custom cake as they felt it would violate their Christian faith, although they were welcome to buy any other standard goods in the shop.

The couple sued successfully in the Colorado Courts but yesterday the Supreme Court overruled. The arguments used and the reasons given were extremely technical and worth examining in detail.

The shop’s lawyer had argued under the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution (the right to free speech). Previous Supreme Court cases had found that the government could not compel speech, for example the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (No. 591) in which students could not be compelled to salute the flag.

The exception argued for is very narrow. If successful it would only apply to bespoke goods with a clearly expressive function. A cake shop could not turn away a gay couple, who wanted to buy a cake, even if they wanted a particular colour style. It would have to be a customisation conveying some expressive quality – such as lettering with a message or two same-sex figures.

The Supreme Court noted the argument before moving straight on to reversing the judgement based on religiously discriminatory remarks made by Colorado officials. The judgement built a consensus of 7 of the 9 judges including two of the ordinarily left-wing justices. The fact specific ratio however dodges an important question that could and indeed, needs, to be decided.

Oddly, the argument raised by the two gay men – of conduct compelled in the name of discrimination – is eerily similar to that raised by extremist incels. “Incels” – a political movement of sexually frustrated men – have argued in essence for women to be compelled to have sex with them. The New York Times actually published an article taking this seriously, entitled, “The Redistribution of Sex”. Similarly trans-rights campaigners have seriously argued that it is discriminatory for non-trans-people to refuse to have sex with them. The BBC asked, “India Willoughby: Is it discriminatory to refuse to date a trans woman?”

Put another way, far-left dogma now asserts it trumps consent in relation to the most intimate and emotionally charged issues. To answer “yes” to the BBC’s question is to mandate literal rape by law. This is the beginning of the death of the equalities movement. What one generation practices in moderation, the next will practice to excess. Thanks to these people and their ilk the very concept of equality is becoming hated and the effects are being seen worldwide.

Trump in America, similar governments in Europe (for example the new Italian government, which has promised mass deportations). The self-appointed warriors for equality have lost their way and the path they have stared down leads to a dark place indeed. Perhaps it is right that voters worldwide have begun making different choices.