A state appeal court ruled February 12 that a Bakersfield bakery didn't have the right not to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. The decision reversed a lower court ruling that found for the Central Valley baker in 2022.
The California 5th District Court of Appeal ruled in the case of California Civil Rights Department v. Tastries that under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the bakery had to provide equal services to lesbian couple Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio, who claimed a scheduled tasting in 2017 was canceled on them once bakery owner Catherine Miller realized they were a queer couple.
(The Unruh act was named for the late Jesse M. Unruh, the once-powerful state Assembly speaker who authored it in 1959. Sexual orientation was added in 2005.)
The suit was brought by the state civil rights department. Director Kevin Kish praised the decision.
"This decision upholds the longstanding principle guaranteeing all Californians full and equal access to services and goods in the marketplace," Kish stated in a news release.
"I commend Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio for their commitment to this core civil right. No matter who you love, where you come from, or who you are, you are protected against discrimination," he added.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, representing Miller, didn't return a request for comment for this report by press time February 14. One of Miller's attorneys, Charles LiMandri, told Cal Matters that Miller would continue to run the bakery while they appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
"This case is not just about Cathy Miller – it's about protecting the rights of all Americans to live and work according to their deeply held beliefs," LiMandri stated. "We will continue to fight in the courts on Cathy's behalf to ensure that the freedom to live out her faith through her creative work is upheld and that justice is fully served."
The unanimous opinion was authored by Associate Justice Kathleen Meehan, who stated "intentional discrimination" was established by Miller's policy to refer the lesbian couple to another business, and that designing a plain, white cake with no writing did not constitute protected speech.
"Under our independent review, we conclude defendants' refusal to provide the Rodriguez-Del Rios the predesigned, multi-purpose white cake requested was not protected expression under the federal Constitution's free speech guarantee," Meehan wrote. "A three-tiered, plain white cake with no writing, engravings, adornments, symbols or images is not pure speech."
The case is reminiscent of another that gained national headlines, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 ruled 7-2 in favor of baker Jack Phillips, who would not bake a cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs. The court found that a Colorado commission was biased against Phillips' religious beliefs – thus avoiding the broader questions about anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment, which have become increasingly salient as LGBTQ people have gained legal protections.
The imbroglio at Tastries started seven years ago when a mixed-sex group, including the lesbian couple, came to the shop for a scheduled tasting, Miller's legal brief states.
"Upon their arrival, Miller believed these five were the bride and groom along with the maid of honor, the best man, and a mother," Miller's brief stated. When she realized "a few minutes into the consultation" that this was a request for a same-sex wedding cake, Miller 'explained that she could not make their wedding cake because doing so would violate her Christian beliefs. Miller offered to connect them with a different custom wedding cake designer.'"
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the California Civil Rights Department) opened an investigation into Miller in October 2017 after the same-sex couple filed a formal complaint, the brief states.
In 2018, the department determined Miller had violated the Unruh Act. Meehan ruled that referring the couple to the separate business did not meet the act's non-discrimination requirements.
"We find no sufficient support for defendants' contention the CRD demonstrated hostility toward Miller's religion in violation of the neutrality that the federal Constitution's First Amendment's free exercise clause requires," Meehan ruled.
Last year, several civil rights groups filed amicus briefs in support of the state's appeal, as the Bay Area Reporter noted at the time. One of them was the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.
"Tastries' refusal to sell a blank, white cake base to a lesbian couple based on their sexual orientation is unequivocally illegal," Nisha Kashyap, a racial justice program director with the committee, told the B.A.R. at the time.
Never miss a story! Keep up to date on the latest news, arts, politics, entertainment, and nightlife.
Sign up for the Bay Area Reporter's free weekday email newsletter. You'll receive our newsletters and special offers from our community partners.
Support California's largest LGBTQ newsroom. Your one-time, monthly, or annual contribution advocates for LGBTQ communities. Amplify a trusted voice providing news, information, and cultural coverage to all members of our community, regardless of their ability to pay -- Donate today!
