History repeats itself. The Supreme Court twice ruled that Colorado could not compel Christians who believe marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman—in 2016’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 2024’s 303 Creative v. Elenis—to serve couples entering into “same-sex unions”.
Now there is a similar dispute in California after a state trial court decided that public officials could not compel a baker to prepare a cake for a “same-sex union.” The officials’ appeal against the baker is pending. Let’s briefly review the facts and the trial court order in a case originally called Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy’s Creation, now California Department of Civil Rights v. Tastries, before remarking on its significance.
California Department of Civil Rights v. Tastries
After ending her 30-year teaching career in 2013, Cathy Miller opened Cathy’s Creations, or Tastries, a small bakery in Bakersfield, California, which she operated in accordance with her Christian beliefs. In addition to ready-to-eat baked goods, Miller sells Christian books and gifts to anyone on first-come, first-serve bases; she and her staff also design custom baked goods for special events such as birthdays, quinceañeras, and weddings.
However, due to Tastries’ Design Standards, Miller will not create specified custom baked goods if they are incompatible with her Christian beliefs, most notably that “marriage is a sacred covenantal union between one man and woman.” As such, she has turned away custom orders inconsistent with this principle.
Controversy emerged in 2017 when two women tried to order a cake commemorating the formalization of their “same-sex union”. Although Miller would not prepare a cake, she referred the couple to a baker who agreed to do so. Subsequently, she and her staff were “barraged by rape threats, pornographic emails [too vile to print here], and harassing phone calls from men threatening to sexually assault them because of Miller’s religious beliefs.”
Additionally, as the initial suit over the injunction was pending, someone stole Miller’s laptop “and one of her employees was assaulted behind the bakery by a man who referred to the case during his attack.” Even though Miller and her employees notified the police, none of these incidents resulted in criminal prosecutions.
Following the formalization of their “same-sex union,” the women filed a complaint with the then California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, now its Civil Rights Department. Following its October 2017 investigation, the Department filed a suit alleging that Miller violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by refusing to prepare a cake for the two women. After the Department unsuccessfully sought to enjoin Miller from implementing her Design Standards, it failed in its suit against Miller as a state trial court, relying on California law, entered a judgment in her Miller’s favor in July 2022.
The court gave three reasons for this judgment. First, the court determined that Miller did not discriminate because her only motivation was to “‘observe and practice her own Christian faith,’ and that ‘the design standards apply uniformly to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.’” Second, the court observed that Miller satisfied the law by referring the couple to a baker who met their needs. Third, the court indicated that even if, arguendo, Miller violated the couple’s free speech rights, she could not be compelled to communicate in a way inconsistent with her beliefs. Interestingly, the trial judge echoed the Supreme Court’s rulings but did not address them directly.
On appeal, Miller is represented by two highly successful public interest firms engaged in protecting people of faith, the Thomas Moore Society and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Reflections
In light of clear Supreme Court precedent—which should trump state law because constitutional rights are at issue—it is troubling that officials in California continue to persecute (a term I use intentionally) Cathy Miller. California’s ongoing efforts at lawfare, which ignore (and even undermine) Miller’s First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and speech, are all the more inexplicable because she willingly assisted the couple by identifying a baker who prepared the cake they requested.
What do the couple and state officials hope to achieve by ignoring unequivocal Supreme Court guidance? Or by also ignoring the state’s anti-discrimination law, which was interpreted in her favor at trial? It is not a stretch to say that if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot and a Christian sought to impose her will on others in this manner, there would likely have been immediate and vocal opposition from the media and activists. Yet, there is no public outcry, even as Miller’s business lost contracts as this dispute became public, while she and her staff were appallingly harassed and at least one was physically assaulted.
Further, it is perplexing that California officials did not do more to protect Miller and her employees even as they continue to press the issue against Tastries. The deafening media silence in not condemning the repugnant threats against Miller, her business, and staff speaks volumes. This case illustrates the rampant hypocrisy of those who fail to condemn such outrageous behavior of some individuals whose ideas are different from their own, while attempting to compel others to agree with positions that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
In sum, Tastries is significant because its outcome may have a great deal to say about whether Americans can learn to demonstrate mutual respect for one another even if they disagree on key questions of the day while condemning those who engaged in execrable and harmful behavior.
Having heard oral arguments on December 17, 2024, the appellate court is likely to render a final judgment in Tastries during sometime this spring.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The true Nazis are to be found among the leftists. Freedom of religious thought does not exist on the left. They are guilty of intolerance and close-mindedness.
Just for the record. The Communists are on the far left, the Nazis on the far right. And they are not on a line, but a circle and they meet and end up the same- both authoritarian dictatorships.
Actually for decades it was taught that Nazism was on the left, as it is a form of Socialism. Some time in the 80’s, there was a successful attempt by the left to rebrand Nazism as being on the right.
Just for the record, the idea that politics is one-dimensional is preposterous. Worse than that, it is the kind of overly simplistic thinking that has largely produced our current problems. After all, if politics is 1D, a move “to the left”, say, vowing to protect abortion and IVF, can be offset by a move “to the right”, say, by lowering taxes.
First and foremost, there is no crime in recognizing that what separates marriage from every other Loving relationship, is the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, and that the institution of marriage, which consists of one man and one woman who have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, does not discriminate against either men or women, while the notion of two men or two women representing a marriage, in every case, discriminates against either a man or a woman, a husband or a wife, and if there are children, a father or a mother.
Any State that desires to change the institution of marriage by claiming that in order to be married it is no longer necessary for a man and woman to have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, and thus be married, would, in fact, by invalidating the validity of a valid marriage, make it possible for any relationship to be declared marriage, if one so desired. The State, no longer having the ability or desire to recognize the institution of marriage cannot then claim to be able to authenticate what is and is not a valid marriage contract.
Just to play devil’s advocate, was Jacob every really married to Rachel? The Bible sorta hints he was.
Understand that polygamy is not only forbidden to Christians, it is everywhere in the Old Testament shown to have bad consequences, and this is something that could be known through human reason without the aid of divine revelation. However, it is by no means clear that polygamy is really quite the violation of natural law as a man trying to “marry” another man or a man trying to “marry” a sheep.
right, public fight all over cake
the left is often overbaked – leave the people on right alone and start your own bakery
For the time being, I’m surprised more bakers don’t simply start selling only “wedding-STYLE cakes” with no names, no messages, and no little figures on top. The sale of a cake should not be seen as an endorsement of the validity of any putative marriage. Bear in mind that quite a lot of these are invalid due to a surviving spouse in a marriage that has not been annulled, a Catholic marrying outside the Church without proper dispensation, or some other reason that is less obvious than two dudes trying to marry each other.
This was a plain, generic white cake, and nothing like a customer wanting an employee to write or draw something offensive on it. The only thing that stopped the bakery owner from selling the customer a plain cake was their sexual orientation. You can love God and be faithful to your religion, but this is still discrimination on the only basis of the customer’s sexual/gender identity. That is illegal in this country. If any person’s religious beliefs do not align with the law, it not OK to just ignore the law and do what you like – at least not when operating a public business for profit in the U.S. Anything goes for private organizations, of course.