In the past few years there have been many conflicting opinions of wedding vendors and whether or not it is unlawful they deny their services to same-sex weddings. On October 21st, 2022, Kern County Superior Court judge Eric Bradshaw stated that Cathy Miller’s freedoms of religion and speech were violated by the state when it decided it was unlawful she decline to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. Cathy Miller is the owner of Tastries Bakery and in previous decisions it was said she violated anti-discrimination laws by denying Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio of her services for their same-sex wedding celebration. The state Department of Fair Housing and Employment had sued the bakery for violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. This act provides people protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation (California Civil Code Section 51). California’s DFEH decided Miller had discriminated against the woman on the basis of their sexual orientation. The question at hand is whether or not Cathy Miller’s free exercise of religion under her First Amendment right is being infringed upon by being forced to produce a design that goes against her religious beliefs.
Bradshaw made the case that Miller has evidently shown that her sincere Christian beliefs are an undeniably huge component of her life and work. Bradshaw also went on to state that Miller, “established her shop’s design standards to conform to her Christian faith in the Bible and what she believes the Bible teaches regarding marriage” (Strode, 2022). Not only has Tastries stated they decline designing wedding cakes that “contradict God’s sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman,” but they also deny designing things that include “explicit or sexual content displaying anything offensive, demeaning, or violent” (Strode, 2022). These standards stem from the sincere religious beliefs that Miller holds. It is difficult to make an effort to argue against the sincerity of her religious beliefs when she not only has written standards denying designing cakes of anything related to same sex marriage, but of other things the bible does not support.
Bradshaw also continues on to note that Miller and Tastries Bakery does serve and employ people no matter what their sexual orientation might be. In addition to this as long as custom order designs do not violate the shop’s standards of design listed above, they will fulfill the orders no matter what the customers sexual orientation is. This is not a bakery that refuses their services to all people who might engage in same-sex relationships. This evidence shows that Miller does not discriminate based on sexual orientation when serving customers, she just refuses to make some designs that contradict her beliefs. According to Bradshaw she also fully served Eileen and Mireya by referring them to another bakery when she could not make the design they requested. In Bradshaw’s decision he concluded that Miller did not intentionally discriminate based on her customers sexual orientation, but evidence shows that “Miller’s only intent, her only motivation, was fidelity to her sincere Christian beliefs” (Strode, 2022).
While we have yet to fully review the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, it is important to note as it is almost the exact same scenario as Cathy Miller and Tastries Bakery. The question asked in this case is whether Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. In this case the Supreme Court noted how Jack Phillips, the bakeries owner, did not receive neutral treatment of his religion that his First Amendment Rights requires. The Commision reflected hostility towards Phillip’s religious beliefs. Overall however, it was decided that forcing Phillip to make a cake that went against his religious beliefs violated his First Amendment Rights, in addition to the hostility he received about his beliefs. When looking at Cathy Miller’s bakeshop and the situation she was put in it is important to refer back to a ruling like this one. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of one’s sexual orientation, but it is not unlawful to deny to design something that goes against one’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
In my opinion, in regards to Cathy Miller’s situation, the sincerity of her religious beliefs and the standards she holds her bakeshop to make it so that she was rightful to deny the designing of Eileen and Mireya’s cake request. She does not discriminate on the basis of people’s sexual orientation, as seen through the evidence that shows she normally employs and serves people who engage in same-sex relationships. She did not serve this couple as the design of the cake that she would have to produce went against her sincere religious beliefs. Her First Amendment Rights of free exercise and speech allow her the ability to do this and to not create or express designs that go against her religious beliefs. It is difficult to make an effort to argue against the sincerity of her religious beliefs when she not only has written standards denying designing cakes of anything related to same sex marriage, but of other things the bible does not support.
While the state works to prevent discrimination through calling out Miller for not serving the two customers, there would have been a substantial burden imposed on Miller’s free exercise of religion. There is a less restrictive means to achieve the state’s objective of preventing discrimination according to Eric Bradshaw, which I agree with. If Miller was constantly denying the service and employment based on one’s sexual orientation, this would be a different case and the state might have a stronger compelling interest to get rid of this discrimination by suing Miller. However, the state does not have a compelling interest here that makes the issue of discrimination more important than the infringement on Miller’s First Amendment free exercise rights.
https://www.dor.ca.gov/Home/UnruhCivilRightsAct
17 comments:
Yes, Cathy Miller’s beliefs are sincere enough to deny a same sex couple a wedding cake design. It is obvious that Ms.Miller is sincere about her religious belief and practices through the way she designed her shop to conform to her Christian faith. I think its also important to note that this is a privately owned and operated bake shop. This is not a publicly owned shop, meaning Ms. Miller has the ability to deny customer’s cake requests, especially if they go against her religious beliefs. Furthermore, I believe that forcing Ms. Miller to design a cake that goes against her religious beliefs would place a more substantial burden on her than it would for the couple to choose a different cake shop that doesn’t hold such sincere religious beliefs.
Great post! I have mixed views on this case. On one hand, it is a privately owned shop and thus Cathy Miller has the First Amendment right to practice the religion of her choice. In this case, that means opposing same sex marriage. However, I see this case it is a business. Ms. Miller has to pay taxes on her building, meaning that it is tied into government spending. Therefore, I do not believe that she can break discriminatory laws. This case reminds me of Bob Jones University v. United States, where Ms. Miller is allowed to have her religious views but may not be able to deny others from the services which they want as they have different views on this matter.
Interesting post! This case reminded me of Masterpiece v Cakeshop because the privately owned bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In that case the court argued it was justified for the baker to not make the cake in regards to free speech and freedom of religion. Although it might be wrong, I think Cathy has a constitutional right to deny making the cake based on precedent.
Great post! I like the way you outlined this case and I agree with your decision. Based on the Constitution, the protection of religious liberties take precedence over matters of discrimination. In this case, I think it is particularly important to note that Cathy did not refuse service based on the sexual orientation of the patrons, but rather based on the design they requested. This is an important distinction and you highlighted that well. It shows that Cathy does not actually discriminate based on sexual orientation but rather holds to a strict policy regarding the content she is willing to design in her work.
Great job and nice job relating it to relevant cases and talking through the main issue! Through the lens of applying the Sherbet test in this case, there is clearly an indirect burden placed on her, as providing the cake would require her to support something that is against her religious beliefs. However, there is a 'compelling' state interest in stifling discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, I believe that Cathy Miller’s approach by still employing same sex workers and providing them with services other than those that require her to support the union of same-sex couples is the least restrictive means of achieving this state interest, while also allowing her to exercise her First Amendment right. I think due to the Masterpiece v. Cakeshop case as well and the history of related precedent that Cathy Miller is able to deny service.
I agree with you and I do not think that Cathy should have to violate her religious beliefs by making this cake. It is obvious that Cathy has sincere beliefs due to the fact that she will not make cakes for other things that violate her religion either. Cathy has had homosexual employees and would serve anyone who was homosexual, however, she will just not make a cake that supports their marriage, which is against her religion. She also referred the couple to a different bakery and provided her service in that way. Overall, I think that it is unlawful to force Cathy to make a cake against her beliefs.
Great post! You really touch on the issue at hand very thoroughly. I completely agree that because her beliefs are so sincere, she has every right to deny people from making their cakes. They have the right to go somewhere else to have a cake baked on their behalf and it is absolutely does not have to be by Cathy. It is Cathy's right to deny business and it is an upholding of her First Amendment rights to practice her religion by not making cakes for same-sex couples.
I think it is safe to say that Ms. Miller is sincere in her religious beliefs as she designed her store in a manner that embraced this notion. The fact that this is a privately owned shop alone indicated that through the First Amendment she has the right to operate her business in the manner she chooses. I think this case gets tricky because the cake Ms. Miller was asked to design went against her strong Christian beliefs and just happened to be for a same-sex couple. If the cake belonged to a heterosexual couple I am assuming Ms. Miller would also refuse that business. Moreover, it is important to underscore the fact that Ms. Miller did not discriminate against this couple, but rather against the design that they wanted on their cake, which as far as I know, is not unconstitutional.
Good job with this post, Anna! I think the most important fact to note is that Miller both serves and employs people regardless of their sexual orientation, so the case for discrimination becomes narrower and only occurs due to her sincere religious beliefs about homosexual marriage. Miller has a Constitutional right to her religious beliefs and exercise, but unfortunately, Eileen and Mireya do not have the right to be served as customers, and Miller referred them to another bakery since she could not make the design they requested. As a result of the Masterpiece precedent, I agree that although the state has a compelling interest to uphold the anti-discrimination statute, this is a substantial burden on Miller’s free exercise.
Great post! I believe that Cathy Miller had the right to not make this cake and to not violate her sincerely held religious beliefs. It is important to note that she already had specific guidelines saying that she would not make any custom cakes that violated or went against her religious beliefs. She also doesn’t discriminate against customers who come in for other goods that are in same-sex marriages, she just won’t make custom cakes for such events because they go against her guidelines and beliefs. She also recommended the couple to another bakery that would provide them with what they needed. Due to these reasons, I think that it would unjust to make her make a cake that directly goes against her religious beliefs.
I agree that Miller should be allowed to choose who she makes cakes for and who she refuses service to. She has Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado as a precedent, and I believe fulfilled any responsibility to the couple by referring them to another bakery, which she did not even have to do. Her religious beliefs should not have to be compromised when the burden on the couple is not substantial.
I belive Miller has every right to deny people from her bake shop for whatever reason she wants. It is a private owned bakery and business and her denying people based on her religious beliefs is genuine. I believe she is sincere as she is turning ing down money in order to uphold her religious beliefs.
While California has a strong state interest of preventing discrimination based on sexuality, I am not sure this case violates the law. The strongest arguments for Miller were that she does not discriminate against same sex couples in any other way except from decorating cakes in which their content goes against her sincerely held religion. She hires LGBTQ+ individuals, and serves other same sex couples that do not ask for cake decorations that infringe upon her religious beliefs. It appears that she also attempted to serve the couple she refused to make a cake for, as she told them about other places they could look. Overall, while California does have a persuading case to reduce discrimination, I am not sure that this case can be challenged under the state law, because of Miller's Free Exercise right, and her apparent lack of other discriminatory practices.
Great post! I agree that Miller's constitutional right to religious freedom of exercise was violated. She should not be forced to act in a manner that directly opposes her beliefs. Her past of not discriminating against employees who don't hold the same beliefs as her but rather she can't use the business she has created to promote beliefs that she doesn't believe in demonstrate the sincerity of her beliefs. In addition to that she is passing up money that could go toward running her business due to the beliefs she holds. Regardless Miller shouldn't be forced to endorse something that doesn't align with her beliefs because it would violate her freedom of exercise.
Great Post! I think you do a valuable job presenting the issue at stake here. I completely agree with you. Cathy Miller owns the shop and it is her decision what she would like to make and what she would not like to make. The same sex couple is still allowed to buy items from the shop, however they can not request a certain design. Miller has strict rules and guidelines that outline what her restrictions are when it comes to baking. The same sex couple can purchase a cake from another shop with their design of choice, it does not have to be from Cathy Miller. Cathy Miller, as you pointed out, is not discriminating against certain groups, everyone can buy from the store, however she is right to think her First Amendment rights protect her from not having to make a cake that goes against her religious beliefs.
The beliefs seem sincerely held and Miller owns the shop, which is a completely private entity. Additionally, her guidelines on cake design hardly seem excessively offensive, so I would argue that the degree of her "discriminatory" act is negligible. Same-sex couples have an almost limitless source of other institutions from which to obtain a custom-designed wedding cake and are still served by Miller's shop in a cordial manner.
I agree with the analysis that you provided as Miller has a history of denying all designs that she feels violate her religious beliefs, whether related to a same-sex marriage, or not, and the fact that she does not practice discrimination within her business functions. I believe that the precedent set in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case would be applicable here as the creative process of making the cakes is viewed as a form of speech.
Post a Comment