Monday, February 5, 2024

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.

7 comments:

  1. Hi Harry!

    Great post. I think you accurately and correctly explain the constitutionality behind the ruling regardless of if the outcome is correct on its morals. Although I do not agree personally with the owner of Tasteries, I do agree that the First Amendment protects her from doing something that goes against her personal religious views. The beauty of private religious practice is that people are able to adopt and create their own morality. There is no reason for outside forces, such as the government, to intervene and coerce her away from her independent views. By forcing her to do so would be in direct violation of all that she values in the world. She is free to refuse service to same sex couples because it is not an instance of discrimination based on employment. If I am correct in my understanding, I believe it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation only in work environments only. Since she is expressing her personal views artistically, it is protected under free speech. Even the most hateful speech is protected under the First Amendment; therefore, I too would side with the Court.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Harry,

    Great post -- really enjoyed reading it! In my view, you effectively defend your position. While many may disagree with the opinion on the basis of moral grounds, the objective of the Court is to interpret the Constitution. Furthermore, I believe this decision is vital to the protection of private business owners' civil liberties. I agree with Anthony; given that she has a genuine devotion to her religion (agree or disagree), it would be a violation of her guaranteed First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. In sum, it would unconstitutional for the State of California to require the owner to sell to same sex couples.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Harry, I agree with you, and Christian above makes a great point. While socially I believe in the legality of same-sex marriage, I believe in this case it is tramply Miller's free-exercise to force her to design cakes for marriages that direct violate her relgious faith. If Miller was offering a neccessary service, such as healthcare or real estate, I believe that there may be more room to go over Miller's religious freedoms. However, when it comes to her artistic expression, as cake/pastry design is, then she is entitled to her free-exercise. However, it is an important debate that needs to further examined, and it is frustrating and upsetting that some's religious beliefs invalidate others lawful unions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Harry,

    This was a great post. I think your explanation of the case and how the First Amendment was able to protect Miller was very accurate. I would agree with her on her beliefs, in terms of the First Amendment, she is protected to exercise her religious faith and beliefs. If the government would force her to do so, it would be unconstitutional. As Christian states in a comment, I agree that this case is vital for protection of private business owners. Especially since, she nicely explained why she wouldn't do it, and she referred them to other bakeries in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Harry,
    I think this was a really good post. I think your basis for defendending the idea of the First Amendment which allowed Miller the protection to choose who to serve from her business was very strong and you made some good arguments. After reading more about the case, I still am not sure where I stand with my opinion on the case regarding weather or not Miller should be constitutionally protected from doing this. To begin with, the First Amendment definitely protects religious faiths and beliefs, but where is the line drawn between actions? In class we discussed how no right is absolute in many cases, because if you can't separate belief from actions then there may be problems caused. This in turn would mean that while Miller has the right to believe in this, her actions regarding her choosing who she will and will not sell to should not be protected. Opinions and beliefs are private, but the state is allowed to overlook general public law. On the second hand, the state enforcing someone to do something that goes directly against their religious beliefs and practices would be very controversial and arguably unconstitutional. After reading various comments, I believe I am leaning toward the ruling of this case, as well as your opinion. It was interesting you picked this case as I was so split in deciding what is right versus wrong, given the Constitutional interpretation within this context, it could be defended either way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with the court and your opinion. I do not believe that Cathay Miller denying the same sex couple her services of decorating a cake was unconstitutional. As we have discussed in class there is no law that prohibits people from being offended due to another person's religious beliefs. I believe that this is what is occurring in this situation: the same sex couple is offended due to Miller’s beliefs but this is not unconstitutional. It has been established through prior supreme court cases that one’s free exercise of religion is not absolute. One’s free exercise of religion if it is harming others. But in this case Miller denying her services to the couple does not cause any harm. So Miller’s actions are constitutional and protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Harry -

    I really enjoyed reading this post and understanding the case in question. It ties back to one of the posts from last week in which a CVS employee was terminated based on her inability to prescribe contraceptives due to her religious beliefs. It is my firm belief that this was unconstitutional because it impedes her freedom to exercise religion protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Similarly in this case, just as the CVS employee should not have to choose between her faith and her job, Cathay Miller should not have to choose either. As mentioned in class, causing offense to an individual (or two in this case) is not a crime and is certainly protected within the rights of Cathay Miller when that offense was caused by her exercising of her religious beliefs. It must be proven that the same-sex couple endured a level of 'undue hardship' after the denial of Cathay Miller to bake their wedding cake. Even then, I think that the kind refusal and referral that took place proves that Cathay's actions were not rooted in discrimination but rather were rooted in a sacramental belief that she could not, not would not, but could not bake the cake for the couple in question. Overall, great post and an awesome example of free exercise in current events!

    ReplyDelete