Refusing To Sell To Same Sex Couples Okay?

Cathay Miller is a devout Christian who resides in Bakersfield, California. She opened a bakery named Tastries in 2013, where she sells all types of goodies such as cookies, cakes and other baked goods. Another service offered by Tastries is the ability to order custom-designed items for big events like birthdays and graduations. Miller is very outgoing with her religion as her bakery is filled with Christian references. Miller is very vocal about living for god's glory and believes that her bakery is “God’s business.” She has bible verses on her business cards and Christian music playing on repeat. She also reflects these religious beliefs in her bakery items. Tastries will turn down custom items that contain gore, pornographic images, celebrate drug use and violence. 

     One day a same sex couple entered Tastries to purchase a customized cake for their soon to be wedding ceremony. Miller realized she was being asked to create a customized cake for a same sex wedding which is something she was not willing to do. Same sex marriage violates the Christian sacrament of marriage according to Millers Christian faith. She then kindly discussed with the couple she was unable to design their cake as it was against her religious views and that she would be happy to refer them to another bakery if needed. Shortly after news that Tastries had denied a custom cake because the purchasers were a same sex couple flooded into the streets. This led to a wave of furious social media posts, emails and phone calls targeting Tastries. Then to make matters worse for Miller and Tastries the California Department of Civil Rights filed a lawsuit in state court to punish Miller for upholding her religious beliefs. 

    

Six years after California originally started its case against the bakery shop, there was a five-day long trial where it was ruled that Miller cannot be forced to design a cake against her religious beliefs. Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled that “baking cakes is an artistic expression and is protected under the first amendment. The state shortly appealed this claim. Miller recently on January 18th filed her appeal that she should not have to choose between her business and faith. The state is saying that Judge Eric Bradshaw “has ignored evidence of intentional discrimination, wrongly held that referral to another business fulfilled Tastries’ obligations to provide full and equal service, and incorrectly ruled the cake was protected under First Amendment as speech or expressive conduct”. Liberal dissenters bring about a strong argument, “For the promise of freedom is an empty one if the government is powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of one person will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of another.” A precedent which could have influenced the court was the supreme court decision of 303 Creative v. Elenis. In a 6-3 vote the court sided with Lorie Smith, an internet web designer who denied same sex couples her service of creating websites for same sex weddings. 

     The question of whether the court is correct in its ruling is a very complicated one. Is Miller being discriminatory against same-sex couples because of who they are? The ruling is dangerous because the court's majority sends a scary message to members of communities who are under “sustained attack”, says Jenny Pizer. We see this issue highlighted by the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment. Drafted in the First Amendment in the United States Constitution by James Madison, the free exercise clause was constructed to protect religious freedom. There is nothing extremely morbid or physically harming those she refuses. Miller seems to be politely declining and offering alternate bakeries. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a “public moral” or a "compelling" governmental interest. 

  In my opinion I am going to be leaning on the ruling of the court. I believe that Miller was within her right to deny the same sex couple a custom-made cake based on the free exercise clause. I think the way in which she handled it was not in a discriminatory sense but truly based of her relies beliefs. She also politely refused and offered up another solution for the product they wanted.  I think if this was to be reversed it could open a can of worms that would facilitate a lot of religious liberty and individual freedom to be suppressed. Religious freedom in my opinion protects the rights of individuals to practice their beliefs whenever they want including their workplace. 

Sources:

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/tastries-owner-submits-reply-as-case-gears-toward-summer-appeal/article_c5563d22-b728-11ee-9e60-

bf2ff8c90634.html#:~:text=Miller%20previously%20won%20her%20case,protected%20under%20the%20First%20Amendment.https://www.becketlaw.org/case/civil-rights-department-of-california-v-tastries/

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1182121291/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision#:~:text=By%20a%206%2Dto%2D3,creating%20a%20message%20she%20opposes.