Christian cake-maker seeks Supreme Court ruling after California says she discriminated against lesbian couple

A Christian baker believes she should not have to design a cake that celebrates an ideology that goes against her faith.

In 2017, Cathy Miller was reportedly approached by a lesbian couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, at her business, the Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California.

Miller explained that same-sex couples were not part of her belief system and that she did not wish to design their cake. Miller did, however, recommend another cake decorator in town.

Later that year, California's Civil Rights Department sued Miller and said she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws.

In 2023, a five-day trial ended with a ruling in favor of Miller, finding that she "serve[d] and employ[ed]" people of all sexual orientations and that her "only intent, her only motivation, was fidelity to her sincere Christian beliefs."

However, an appellate court reversed the decision and said in February that Miller's refusal was "not protected expression under the federal Constitution's free speech guarantee."

"A three-tiered, plain white cake with no writing, engravings, adornments, symbols, or images is not pure speech," wrote associate Justice Kathleen Meehan of the California 5th District Court of Appeal, Yahoo reported.

After the California Supreme Court refused to hear her argument, Miller is now asking the SCOTUS to hear her case.

Miller has allegedly always safeguarded her business with the declaration that her custom creations are all carefully designed and will not "celebrate ideals that violate the Christian sacrament of marriage."

Her written standards also state that Tastries will not design custom bakery items that depict gore or pornographic images, demean others, or celebrate drug use.

While Miller has faced near limitless threats over the years, she said she has been humbled by the "outpouring of support for my freedom to serve my community with joy, compassion, and faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

A total of 16 states — along with other legal and faith groups — have asked the Supreme Court to articulate a clear rule regarding the expressive nature of the wedding cakes, so that lower courts can resolve cases on their own. These states are:

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case was decided in 2018, in which a Colorado baker told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding due to his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time of the event, and the baker said he would still sell them other baked goods.

The Supreme Court sided with baker Jack Phillips, but not because it believed he should be allowed to refuse the service. Rather, the high court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed religious bias toward Phillips in the case.

In the 2023 ruling for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create "expressive designs for same-sex marriages" and to speak "messages with which the designer disagrees."

Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion for the case focused on "expressive conduct" and content.

"No government ... may affect a 'speaker's message' by 'forc[ing]' her to 'accommodate' other views," Gorsuch wrote.

Looks like CA is relying on the fact there were no LGBTQ design elements, and therefore, the court claims the baker's First Amendment expression rights were not implicated.

But that's not what the First Amendment says: it guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the "free exercise" of religion.

Even without decoration, the baker was being asked to support a gay marriage by making the cake, which is no different than if a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic wanted a cake from a Catholic bakery to celebrate its grand opening.

The asinine Obergefell decision would inevitably produce a conflict between the plain text of the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause and SCOTUS' confabulation of an "equal protection" claim to a right to "gay marriage."

Thank you for referencing that article Twotone.

A total of 16 states — along with other legal and faith groups — have asked the Supreme Court to articulate a clear rule [??? emphasis added] regarding the expressive nature of the wedding cakes, so that lower courts can resolve cases on their own. These states are:

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Why are the 16 misguided states asking the compromised Supremes for clarification on this Bill of Rights (BoR) infringement by the states when the constitutional reality is as follows.

Consider that millions of misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification (popular voting for federal senators) patriot voters keep reelecting the same compromised career lawmakers who are stubbornly refusing to risk losing their offices by using their 14th Amendment powers to make penal laws to discourage state actors from making anti-Christian state policies for example.

Excerpted from 14A:

"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

More specifically, since justices have much better constitutional job security than lawmakers do, corrupt, post 17A lawmakers have learned to protect their voting records for reelection purposes by remaining silent about BoR infringements by the states, effectively letting the likewise compromised Supreme Court get away with legislating BoR protections from the bench on a case by case basis.

As a consequence of the loose cannon Supreme Court “legislating” BoR protections from the bench, California has seemingly forgotten that it lost a previous 14th Amendment-related case, a case concerning infringement of speech by UC Berkeley.

UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)

On the other hand, since it wouldn't be surprising if California taxpayers actually wound up paying the compensation, defeating the purpose of 14th Amendment protections if so imo, California probably doesn't care how many anti-Christian 14A cases it loses.

This issue is another good reason why Democratic and Republican Trump supporters need to support him with as many new Constitution-respecting lawmakers that they can elect in 2026 midterm primaries who will make laws strengthening BoR protections.

Also, note that patriots could have theoretically elected all-new federal senators twice+ by now since Obama's first midterm elections. But patriots have been asleep at the wheel.

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature. —Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

WAKE UP PATRIOTS!

I believe the 13th Amendment is all that is needed to stop this case in its tracks. Forcing anyone to work against their will or to force anyone to use their God given talents in a fashion that is contrary to their faith is S[L]AVERY.

Meaning that while service for items that are available for all is not to be denied on the basis of race, skin color, national origin, ethnicity, a person/business cannot be forced to create/provide a custom expressive work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an act and or ideology that the business finds morally offensive. A Jew or Muslim, Christian or atheists, should not be forced to create a cake, clothing, or make a sign, write a song, etc., celebrating each other's events.

Or even an Uber driver providing a ride to anyone intending to engage in an immoral activity (like an abortion clinic), unless that refusal is due to the customer's race, etc. versus the nature of the activity the customer intends to take part in.

However, the issue is can this freedom extend to such expressions such as mixed race marriage, or a ride to a religious service. And the problem is when protection status is extended to a class defined on the basis of how they feel and act, or even to a "resolutely non-theistic" org (satanic temple).

Which means that regardless how much it is denied, laws flow from beliefs, and those of America overall flowed from religion, that of basic Christianity which is disowns at it its own peril. Yes, this

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.