California Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creation Tasteries
The California Civil Rights Department v. Cathay’s Creation Tasteries case is shockingly similar to the very familiar and popular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. In 2017, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio were engaged and planning a wedding celebration which required a cake. The couple went into Tasteries, a local cake shop located in Bakersfield, California. They planned on purchasing a cake from the store, but once the owner, Cathy Miller found out she would be providing a wedding cake to a same sex couple she refused service. Similar to Jack Philips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, Miller suggested other cake shops that would create their wedding cake, but did not offer them other goods within the store. Miller cited the store's discrimination policy and turned them away. After the couple filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, the state argued that Miller, owner of Tasteries, had violated the state protections against discrimination. This is titled the Unruh Act, which provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments for any reason under the following categories: age, ancestry, race/color, disability, national origin, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. The state filed suit and the lower courts ruled in favor of Miller, arguing that there are several cases which support her right to deny same-sex couples. Miller’s Free-Exercise rights are protected under Fulton, Tanden, Lukumi, and Masterpiece Cakeshop. The lower courts determined that under those precedents, the California state Unruh Act is neither neutral nor generally applicable. Miller feels that she is receiving hostility from the courts due to her sincerely held religious beliefs. Similar to Jack Philips, Miller is a member of her local Church, Valley Baptist Church in Bakersfield. She believes that her religion is a sincere part of her life. Additionally Miller believes that God calls upon her to honor him in every aspect, including at her job. Miller noted that she had received other orders in the past that did not align with her religious views/beliefs, and also turned those customers away. Such items consisted of baked goods with vulgar messages or pictures, drug paraphernalia, etc. It is noted in Miller’s respondent opening brief that “Miller's mission and standards for Tasteries stem directly from the Bible.”
I believe a large reason why the Masterpiece CakeShop case was ruled in favor of Jack Philips was due to the fact that gay marriage was not legalized in Colorado at the time. The California Civil Rights Department v. Cathay’s Creation Tasteries case was far more recent and occurred when gay marriage had been legalized for a while now. This fact would likely produce a different outcome if this case were to go to the Supreme Court. While the respondent is claiming that the courts are failing to act neutrally towards her religion and religious exercise rights, Ginsburg noted in dissent of the Masterpiece CakeShop case that the comments of one or two lawyers can not let it affect the outcome of the entire case, and I agree. The comments of a few people who strongly disagree with Miller in the lower courts cannot be the reason that this discriminatory behavior is lawful. Owning a business and providing goods for every customer is a very neutral practice at both face value and in practice. There is a difference between belief and action. While Miller is not forced to believe that gay or same-sex marriage should be legal under her religious convictions, her making a cake is not fully endorsing the practice of same-sex marriage. She is not officiating the wedding or a part of the ceremony, nor does she have to agree with the idea to create the product. While Free Exercise and Free Speech rights are crucial components in American Law, if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Miller, this could potentially pose a slippery slope of basic discrimination. Given the historical aspects of Jim Crow laws where racial discrimination was extremely common and acceptable, how does this set the precedent that it is acceptable to discriminate and refuse service to LGBTQ+ members due to religious reasons? What would this precedent set? What would happen if someone were to discriminate based on race or gender, would this case be perceived differently? Of course, these are just a few of the hypotheticals that the court may ask in addition to many more. Finally, while this case is extremely complex and very morally grounded, this is a complex process in which the courts have to determine what is legal, regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong in some definitions. This case seems to be something which the courts have to determine what is more important, Constitutional issues such as freedom of speech and exercise, or civil rights such as protections against discrimination. Hybrid cases such as this often pose more complex issues and make the decision all the more challenging, at least for me when looking at cases that outline multiple different issues. While this issue remains complex, I disagree with the majority opinion in the lower courts which ruled in favor of Miller as I believe this could potentially set a dangerous precedent for discriminatory behavior in the future. Because she discriminated not only upon the message but also the identity of the individuals who attempted to purchase products from her store that was available to others of different identities, I believe this violates the precedent set in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/california-civil-rights-department-v-cathys-creations-dba-tastries
2 comments:
Great job, Hayden. I agree with you that a key fact in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case that differs from this case was that in Masterpiece, gay marriage had not been legalized within the state of Colorado. Nevertheless, I feel that the precedent set in that case would likely still apply if this case made it to the Supreme Court today. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in the Masterpiece case mentioned the fact that in the view of Phillips, creating cakes was a form of artistic expression and one in which he expressed himself in line with his sincerely held religious beliefs. I feel the situation in this case is similar in that Miller’s religious beliefs are deeply held and influence the work she produces at her job. She had previously turned down other cake designs for failing to align with her religious beliefs and this case is no different. Therefore, I believe that if the Supreme Court ruled that Phillips’ free exercise and free speech rights were violated in the Masterpiece case, they would say the same in this one too.
Hayden,
Your analysis of this case brings up some crucial points! While comparisons to the Masterpiece Cakeshop are extremely relevant, the context is significant. The legalization of gay marriage in California adds a layer of complexity to this debate, potentially influencing judicial perspectives. I brought up this point in one of our lecture discussions about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case! I also appreciated your insight regarding the distinction between belief and action. While individuals hold the right to their religious convictions, the provision of goods and services in a public setting inherently involves adherence to anti-discrimination statutes. As you note, a ruling in favor of Miller may hold future ramifications, potentially emboldening discriminatory practices under the guise of religious freedom. That being said, balancing constitutional rights with civil liberties presents a signifcant challenge for judicial bodies. Great post!
Post a Comment