Civil Rights Department of California v. Tastries
In a fight to keep her bakery in business, Cathy Miller, a baker out of California and a dedicated Christian, fights for her right to deny cake designs that violate her religious faith and morals. Miller started her bakery in 2013, baking cakes, pastries, and cookies as well as designing cakes for special occasions. As a dedicated Christian, she tied her faith throughout her bakery business. She even set guidelines for designs she would not do because of her beliefs, including same-sex marriage deceptions. However, in the case scenarios where she felt her faith was violated by a design, she would direct the customers to another nearby bakery. Until a same-sex couple wanted her to design their wedding cake in 2017, and she directed them to a nearby bakery to do their design instead. The Civil Rights Department of California then filed their case against Tastries and Cathy Miller for her denial of the same-sex couple.
The main legal issue here is whether Miller has the right to exercise her religious beliefs and deny customers designs and orders when they do not align with her morals. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause states that people are allowed to practice and hold their religious beliefs without interference from the government. This case ties to the U.S. Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis, which establishes that “business owners have the right to refuse to express a particular message to which they categorically object” (ACLU). Similarly for Miller, she refused the message of same-sex marriage on the wedding cake design which was in her right to do so, according to this case. However, this Supreme Court case also established that it would not allow businesses to refuse customers based on their identity. This differentiation puts Miller against herself, same-sex marriage goes against her beliefs but she is also denying them because of their identity. Did Miller deny the couple because of their identity as a same-sex couple because she was trying to be discriminatory or because she felt they violated her morals and beliefs.
In my opinion, Cathy Miller while seeming discriminatory in her action of not contracting with the same sex couple, she was following the moral convictions of her religious beliefs. While she denied giving them service and designing their cake, she recommended another bakery nearby that would contract their cake and designs. She was very clear in her design standards that she would not contract for anything that she was not comfortable with. For example, violence, drug use, same-sex marriage, and inapporiate designs. She had a range of designs that she refused to contract for but was more than willing to recommend a place that would. I do not think she was purposefully refusing identities or ethnicities but that she was following her beliefs that happened to include same-sex couples. This was a case of inaction rather than action, she refused to do the design and directed elsewhere versus doing the design and targeting the couple. With her being so clear on her standards and very up front about her religious beliefs, I do not think that she was being discriminatory in her actions and if she was not being discriminatory she should have the right to refuse to endorse a message on her design/product. I believe that in her case, she should be able to operate her bakery freely with her religious design standards, if customers do not like these standards they can go to the bakery that she recommends nearby.
Cathy Miller’s case is now being appealed to be heard by the California Supreme Court following a decision against her on February 11, 2025. Miller continues to fight for her religious freedoms in an effort to be able to operate her bakery fully again.
7 comments:
I agree that this did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. There is no law stating that someone cannot be offended by another's religious beliefs. While it may seem wrong to some, Cathy Miller was acting according to her religious convictions and should not be forced to go against them. Additionally, her bakery is a private business, and the government is not forcing her to change her beliefs or practices. She provided an alternative by directing the couple to another bakery, which shows that her intent was not to discriminate but to remain true to her religious values. I do not think she is violating the Constitution in any way.
I feel as though this is a somewhat difficult case to untangle. On the one hand - her religious conviction is without a doubt being violated as she is unable to freely express her religion within the context of her OWN business. On the other hand, the government is trying to circumvent unjust discrimination based on an individuals identity - whether that is based on race, ethnicity, religion, or some other metric.
However, I think that a slippery slope is involved, a question of sincerity is involved, and finally, a question of public vs. private speech/action is involved.
If she is no longer able to deny certain requests that go against her religious conviction, what is stopping the government from mandating every business into complying with certain and rigid restrictions on what is permissible or impermissible business practices with regards to religion.
This connects as well to the idea of sincerity - as who is to say her religious conviction is sincere or not, or whether she is discriminating against same-sex couples for other non-religious reasons. Does she go against their identity for arbitrary reasons or is her religious conviction real?
Finally, this raises the question on whether free expression is allowed in your privately OWN business. While business is an inherently public endeavor (involving others and customers that make up the public), it is entirely different when compared to, say, a government official, or a politician within the senate. If someone who owns their own business is unable to regulate and change their business to their OWN liking, and it must be oversaw by the government (with varying levels of restriction), this seems like another slippery slope waiting to arise (even though there are certain hoops that all business owners have to jump through - I am solely focusing on religion here).
I feel more compelled to agree with Cathy, and while some my find her business practices offensive (as mentioned by Alyssa), she is not obligated to run her business so that no one ever is offended. There is no law stating that someone cannot be offended by your religious conviction (at least not in the US).
I agree that this is a violation of her free exercise. Since it is her own business, she should have the right to refuse designs that go against her religious convictions. I do not think it is discrimination because she is refusing the design rather than the customers themselves. Furthermore, by providing the customers other options she is clearly not acting hostile towards them based on their identity. Rather, she is setting boundaries in her business that reflect her personal beliefs, and I think it is her right to do so.
I believe this is not a violation of her free exercise. While it is her own business she still needs to upholds to the laws. Individuals shouldn't be denied business based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, these laws are in place to prevent discrimination. I think it is important to consider belief vs action in this case, while Cathy Miller is protected by the first amendment to hold these beliefs, her action of denying service impacts the couples right to access the service of the business. Belief vs action is central to upholding both individual freedoms and anti-discrimination laws.
I also believe that this lawsuit is threatening to violate Cathy's rights outlined under the Free Exercise Clause. If her religious convictions tell her that same-sex marriage is not acceptable, the government should not force her to act on something she doesn't believe in. However, this makes me think back to Reynolds v. United States, where Reynolds was put in jail for practicing polygamy even though he believed he would go to hell if he didn't. The courts main justification for keeping polygamy outlawed and imprisoning Reynolds, despite his Mormon beliefs, was that it disrupted social order and it was appalled by society. So, is refusing service to someone because of their sexuality disrupting social order? On the surface I think YES it does, especially in a time where homosexuality is widely accepted. But, the fact that she is kindly referring them to another store and is willing to giving up her own revenue makes me think otherwise. What do you think?
While this case was hard to evaluate, I lean towards the opposing argument that Cathy's Free Exercise rights are indeed being violated. It is a good point to bring up that there is no law stating that someone cannot be offended by another's religious beliefs. This could be used in the reverse to say that the same-sex couple is allowed to be offended by Cathy’sconvcition and choice to deny them, but they cannot force her private business to provide services that go against her beliefs. The government attempting to force this could even become a problem of coercion.
While Cathy’s actions may be viewed as discriminatory, I think that she is acting in alignment with her religious beliefs. I think that there are two main points to note. Firstly, she clearly stated her refusal to do multiple designs that she was uncomfortable with, aside from designs depicting same-sex marriage. Secondly, her business is privately owned, meaning she has control over what product she creates and sells. Therefore, I do not think that Cathy was violating the Constitution or the Free Exercise Clause in denying this couple's design.
Post a Comment