Posted on 10/25/2022 9:21:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Victory for a Christian baker was announced on Friday after years of going around the court system for a lawsuit over a rejected wedding cake order. The order for the wedding cake depicted two lesbians; therefore, creating such a cake conflicted with the Cakeshop owner’s religious beliefs about marriage.
“Judge rules Christian baker was allowed to refuse to sell cake to lesbian couple,” LGBTQ Nation reported, adding:
“In his decision, Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw said that the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing had failed to prove that Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller had intentionally discriminated against the couple under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.”
The public may remember the case that was widely discussed and used by the left as a rallying call to action for increased empowerment of homosexuals against Christians and against small businesses.
“We applaud the court for this decision,” said Charles LiMandri, Thomas More Society special counsel who worked on the case said in an official statement, adding: “The freedom to practice one’s religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, and the United States Supreme Court has long upheld the freedom of artistic expression.”
Fox News reported on the story with more details:
Cathy Miller, a cake designer who owns the popular Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, California, won what her lawyers at the Thomas More Society called “a First Amendment victory” when Judge Eric Bradshaw of the Superior Court of California in Kern County ruled against California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment, which had brought the lawsuit against her.
Miller was subject to multiple lawsuits after she referred a lesbian couple to another baker when they requested a cake for their wedding. Because of her Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, Miller declined to design a custom cake for their ceremony, believing it would be tantamount to a tacit affirmation.
“Here at Tastries, we love everyone,” Miller said in an interview with KERO in 2017. “My husband and I are Christians, and we know that God created everyone, and He created everyone equal, so it’s not that we don’t like people of certain groups, there are just certain things that violate my conscience.”
After refusing to make the cake, the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment filed a lawsuit against Miller’s business under provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a broad 1959 state statute that sought to protect consumers from being discriminated against by businesses on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or religion.
Paul Jonna, another special counsel for the Thomas More Society who was also one of Miller’s attorneys, pointed out that there was “a certain irony” to the case since “a law intended to protect individuals from religious discrimination was used to discriminate against Cathy for her religious beliefs.”
“He went on to say that his client’s beliefs regarding marriage are part of what is considered mainstream Christian teachings and that in going after Miller, the state harassed her because of her religion.
The attorney also noted that during questioning under oath, attorneys for the state appeared to question the sincerity of her beliefs by asking if she also adhered to dietary laws of the Old Testament like she does regarding the issues of sexual morality,” Jon Doughtery reported for Conservative Brief.
“The state was actually questioning the sincerity of Cathy’s faith,” Jonna said. “The fact that they called Miller’s open and sincerely held beliefs into question is almost as disturbing as quibbling over her status as an artist.”
“In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games in another huge First Amendment victory.
When the school district learned that then-coach Joseph Kennedy was praying with the team, they told him that he could pray separately from the students. Kennedy declined to change his practice, was put on paid leave, and then filed a lawsuit,” Doughtery reported.
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed sympathetic to Kennedy. The Washington Post reported:
Questions from the court’s conservatives indicated they believe the school district has misread the court’s precedents regarding government endorsement of religion and perhaps was hostile to such demonstrations.
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Kennedy would have been disciplined if he had taken a knee during the national anthem to protest racism. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned Katskee, legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, about other political activism.
Suppose “when Coach Kennedy went out to the center of the field … all he did was to wave a Ukrainian flag. Would you have fired him?” Alito asked.
“Where is the school district rule that says that?” Alito demanded.
“No teacher or coach should lose their job for simply expressing their faith while in public,” Kelly Shackelford, president, and CEO of First Liberty, who is representing the case, said in a statement.
"Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Kennedy would have been disciplined if he had taken a knee during the national anthem to protest racism. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned Katskee, legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, about other political activism.Suppose “when Coach Kennedy went out to the center of the field … all he did was to wave a Ukrainian flag. Would you have fired him?” Alito asked.
“Where is the school district rule that says that?” Alito demanded."
Why did they figure they wouldn’t be successful causing problems?
The lesbos should make their own cake if they want cake.
“Why did they figure they wouldn’t be successful causing problems?”
I believe they’re so clueless that they counted on the idea that the problems would start the minute they walked through the door — that a ruckus would start immediately. Doubt if they had even thought out to the next step, i.e., that they would be accepted. “Duh. What do we do now? Guess we’ll just leave.”
They didn’t know that we want to reach out to EVERYONE with the gospel, including them.
Baker sends cake to Lesbian Couple with finger on it.
Never let freaks get out of hand it’s why they make cages.
“refused to sell a cake” is not what he did - he refused to work with them to design a cake to celebrate something he was opposed to. They could have purchased all the products they wanted...just not use his creative talents on something he did not wish to participate in.
Correct. This lie keeps being pushed that he “refused to sell a cake to lesbians.” Like he turned them away at the door saying “we don’t do business with your kind.” Never happened.
What does any of that have to do with her right not to bake the cake? She's not making a lot of sense.
Christian’s need to learn to explain why we are not subject to the Old Testament dietary rules, as well as the Levitical laws regarding the mixing of fibers in clothing, and even animal sacrifice. The Levitical law for the forgiveness of sin was the Old Covenant between God and Israel. Christians have never been subject to The Law because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and His shed blood is the New Covenant.
Everyone IS subject to the Ten Commandments. “You shall not commit adultery” covers all forms of sexual sin and will continue to do so.
The irony is that Jesus has told us there is “No marriage or giving in marriage in Heaven”.
“The incident was way back in 2017.”
OMG. It never ceases to amaze me how long some seemingly simple cases can drag on.
Maybe with hair on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.