A recent ruling by a California appeals court found that a baker in Kern County breached state law by denying service to a same-sex couple seeking a wedding cake. This decision, which emerged from a lawsuit filed by the California Civil Rights Department, underscores ongoing national discussions surrounding free speech and anti-discrimination legislation.
The case echoes previous high-profile legal battles, including a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that favored a baker in Colorado who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. That ruling was predicated on findings that the Colorado civil rights commission exhibited bias against the baker’s religious beliefs. Additionally, in another 2023 Supreme Court case focusing on a Colorado website designer, the court sided with the designer based on her religious opposition to same-sex marriage, suggesting that compliance with state laws could infringe upon her First Amendment rights. Critics, particularly from the LGBTQ community, have expressed concerns that such rulings could pave the way for increased discrimination.
This week’s California ruling clarifies the limits of free expression for business owners. Kevin Kish, the director of the California Civil Rights Department, commended the outcome for reinforcing the principle that all Californians deserve equal access to services and goods.
The legal matter arose when Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio approached Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield in August 2017 to order a cake for their wedding. After discussing options with an employee, they chose a standard plain white three-tiered cake typically made for various celebrations. On their return for a tasting, however, the bakery owner, Catharine Miller, informed them that she would not sell the cake as it would be used at a same-sex wedding.
Miller, a devout Christian, has a policy against creating cakes that conflict with her religious views, including those related to marijuana and sexual themes. She stated that her policy stems from her belief in traditional marriage, which she defines as a union between one man and one woman. Following the incident, the couple lodged a complaint with the Civil Rights Department, prompting a lawsuit against Miller in 2018. Miller’s defense, provided by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asserted that her refusal was based on her faith and not hostility toward LGBTQ individuals.
Initially, a Kern County judge ruled in favor of Miller, claiming her policy was universally applied and was not in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. This judge noted that Miller had even recommended another bakery that would cater to same-sex couples, a venue the Rodriguez-Del Rios had dismissed in advance.
However, the state appealed the ruling, and a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel from the 5th Appellate District reversed the earlier judgment. The appellate judges determined that Miller’s policy was not neutral, as it selectively impacted customers based on their sexual orientation. Furthermore, they concluded that selling a basic cake, absent any written or decorative elements, should not be interpreted as endorsing a same-sex wedding.
In their conclusion, the judges remarked on the challenge of labeling commonplace commercial items as forms of artistic expression. A spokesperson for Miller, representing the Becket Fund, confirmed that she would continue operating her bakery as the decision is appealed to the state Supreme Court. Her attorney expressed commitment to protecting the rights of individuals to live according to their beliefs, indicating a willingness to continue this legal battle.
This case may attract further appeals from conservative legal groups eager to expand on the Supreme Court’s ruling that benefits businesses refusing service on ideological grounds. Legal expert Matt Coles from UC Law San Francisco noted that the California ruling draws critical distinctions between expressive works like wedding websites and standard cakes, saying it does not favor claims under the First Amendment for generic commercial products.
This ruling adds another chapter to the legal discourse surrounding LGBTQ rights and the balance between individual beliefs and anti-discrimination laws.
