California Civil Rights Department V. Cathy’s Creations
In California, there are lingering conflicts between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. Cathy’s Creations, Inc, known to California residents as Tastries Bakery, found itself in a complex dispute after refusing to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In this case, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Unruh Civil Rights Act interact, creating much debate in the ongoing dispute between the California Civil Rights Department and Cathy’s Creations, Inc.
In August of 2017, Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio visited Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, hoping to order a custom cake for their wedding, as their search for a cake at other bakeries had been unsuccessful. After being set up with an employer at Tastries Bakery, the same-sex couple met with the bakery owner, Cathy Miller, to discuss details of their cake. Miller then declined their request to order a custom wedding cake because she believed that creating a cake to represent marriage between a same-sex couple would violate her profound Christian beliefs about marriage. Miller mentioned that the bakery does serve LGBTQ customers regularly, but draws a line when it comes to selling ordinary baked goods and designing a cake that is made uniquely to celebrate a same-sex ceremony. Miller then provided a nearby bakery, Gimme Some Sugar, as a referral bakery that could accommodate the same-sex couples' needs (Rio had already attended and was dissatisfied with). The couple then filed a complaint with the California Department of Civil Rights, alleging that the refusal to serve them constituted unlawful discrimination in direct violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act requires businesses open to the public to provide equal service to customers regardless of characteristics such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
The issue in these cases concerns whether enforcing UCRA against Tasties Bakery would constitute a direct violation of Miller’s constitutional right to free exercise under the First Amendment. Miller argues that designing and creating a custom wedding cake is an expressive act that communicates approval of the specific marriage it is made for. Cathy Miller is a devout Christian and has created Tastries Bakery to reflect that, as “she believes that Tastries is God’s business, and that she and her husband work in service to God” by playing Christian music in the store and adding Bible verses to their business cards. Forcing her to create a cake of this nature would interfere with her religious convictions, as within the bakery's policy that will not make a cake in which a “Request(s) that violate fundamental Christian principals [sic]; wedding cakes must not contradict God’s sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman”.
However, the CCRD argues that all businesses open to the public at large must comply with the anti-discrimination laws in effect in UCRA. The state contends that allowing a religious exemption in a situation like the one at hand would ultimately undermine civil rights protections, leading to a slippery slope and allowing businesses to refuse service based on pure personal beliefs. CCRD views Tastries Bakery’s refusal to serve the same-sex couple not as a protected religious expression but as a direct discrimination in commerical marketplace.
When analyzing this case, and where to fall in opinion, we can look back to another case involving wedding services and religious objections similar to California Civil Rights Department V. Cathy’s Creations d/b/a Tastrie. In 2017, Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled on a VERY similar issue regarding a same-sex couple being refused service at Masterpiece Cakeshop because of the owner, Phillips, religious obligations. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility and made inappropriate comments toward Phillips' beliefs, thereby violating the neutral religious treatment guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court acknowledges that at the time when Phillips refused service to the same-sex couple was in 2012, when same-sex marriage laws were more unsettled before important cases such as United States v. Windsor, 570 US 744 (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US ___ (2015). However, the court did not rule on whether businesses have constitutional rights to refuse such services based on religious convictions. This case then now rests between two important principles. Should Tastries be exempted from anti-discrimination laws in protection of their First Amendment right, specifically the Free Exercise Clause? Or is the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in public commerce, like UCRA, more compelling in the state's interest?
In my view of this case, I believe the court will side with California. United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges established the precedent that all states must accept same-sex marriage and provide equal treatment to such. When Masterpiece V. Colorado was decided, the idea of same-sex marriage was not as settled and legalized as it is now in 2026. UCRA’s anti-discrimination laws, as well as the cases mentioned above, proved enough reason and support to enforce that Tastries Bakery cannot refuse a potential client solely based on their sexual orientation. Although Tastries does provide an alternative bakery option, it is not a minimal burden, especially since the same-sex couple had already consulted and disagreed with the flavors of the cakes provided by Gimme Some Sugar. As for the bakery's defense of expression and artistic creation of the cake being a violation of their religious obligations, the cake design (shown below) is one that has been created many times for wedding cakes with a man and a woman, as it is a popular design for the company.
Resources:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/california-civil-rights-department-v-cathys-creations-dba-tastries
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-307
7 comments:
I agree with your view and believe that anti-discrimination laws should still apply to businesses that are open to the public to ensure people are treated equally regardless of sexual orientation. The similar case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, also makes the situation interesting, but that case focused on hostility towards the owners religious beliefs. In this case, it does not seem like creating the cake would burden the bakery, especially since they make similar designs of wedding cakes regularly.
I agree that California is likely to prioritize anti-discrimination protections in this case. When businesses open their services to the public, laws like the Civil Rights Act exist to ensure equal access regardless of identity. While religious freedom is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, allowing broad exemptions could weaken civil rights protections for many groups.
I agree with your initial opinion on the anticipated ruling in this case. While religious free exercise is an important constitutional protection, businesses that choose to operate in the public marketplace must comply with anti-discrimination laws like the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Allowing religious exemptions to these laws could weaken civil rights protections and create limited access to services like those provided by Tastries Bakery for marginalized groups, particularly same-sex couples. I am curious to see the ruling in this case given our current political climate, as I believe it will either be a powerful upholding of past precedent, or a turning point in the opposite direction for anti-discrimination cases of this nature.
I agree with Theresa; I believe the court will prioritize maintaining anti-discrimination protections to prevent undermining the Civil Rights Act. The slope in this case is very slippery, as allowing this may lead to other publicly open businesses discriminating against other minorities, not just in the LGBTQ+ community. I also think that while the owners' religious freedom should be protected, they should also have some means of separating their private practices (religion) from their public practice, the wedding cake business.
I agree with your opinion on this case; businesses that choose to be public must comply with anti-discrimination laws. Religious freedoms are protected under the First Amendment, but equal treatment without discrimination is protected by the Civil Rights Act. The bakery very clearly denied the couple based on their sexual orientation and that cannot be viewed as anything other than discrimination.
I agree with you, Liv. In reading that the bakery has catered to LGBTQ+ individuals in the past but decided they were unwilling to serve a same-sex couple is blatant discrimination. Based on their religious beliefs, shouldn't they be unwilling to serve any member of the LGBTQ+ community? Aside from exemptions and laws, the values within the bakery are clearly flawed.
I think personally that she shouldn’t have to engage in activity that contradicts her beliefs, especially if it's her own shop, but I do believe, in compliance with the law and what the CCRD requires of open shops in terms of anti-discrimination that she should comply with the demands of the customers.
Post a Comment