The owners of a Bakersfield bakery have vowed to appeal to the California Supreme Court, after a state appeals panel ruled their sincere Christian beliefs don't allow them to avoid potentially being hammered by the state with penalties for declining to provide a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
On Feb. 11, a three-justice panel of the California Fifth District Court of Appeals in Fresno sided with the California Civil Rights Department in its seven-years-long action against Tastries Bakery and its owner, Catharine "Cathy" Miller.
The bakery operates under the corporate identity of Cathy's Creations Inc.
California Fifth District Appellate Justice Kathleen Meehan
| Appellate.courts.ca.gov/
The ruling reversed the decision of a Kern County Superior Court judge, who had found Tastries' owners didn't violate California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by declining to provide a wedding cake for a wedding involving two lesbian women.
The appellate court found the lower court incorrectly determined the bakery owners were allowed to decline to bake the cake for that wedding, because the court determined the act of preparing a cake for a wedding "always" amounts to constitutionally protected expression, which cannot be compelled by the state.
In this case, the appellate court said the state could pursue Tastries Bakery, because the cake design sought by the lesbian couple for their wedding was one of several pre-existing designs the bakery features on "sample" cakes on display in their glass cases in their store.
As such, even though the cake was only available by pre-order and could not be purchased directly from the case, the appeals court said the "predesigned" nature of the cake made it no different from any other regular baked goods for sale over the counter on any day in the store.
The appellate court said the state doesn't need to show there was any "evidence of malice or ill will," only that the bakery refused to supply a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding that it would have provided for a traditional wedding between a man and woman.
The court said Miller's religious beliefs are irrelevant in this case.
"Despite that the underlying rationale for the policy is rooted in a sincerely held religious belief about marriage, held in good faith without ill will or malice, the policy nonetheless requires a distinction in service that is based solely on, and because of, the end users' sexual orientation," the court wrote.
As such, the court said the facts of the case demonstrate "intentional discrimination" on the part of Miller, allegedly in violation of California's civil rights law which requires "full and equal access" for all to her bakery's services.
In response to the ruling, Miller's attorneys with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said they intend to appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.
And they said Miller intends to continue operating her business under her policies.
“For seven years, California has sought to crush Cathy and her family just because she wants to run her business in accordance with her faith in God," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, in statement following the Fifth District court's ruling. "The court’s decision today allows those attacks to continue, but we will continue to fight for Cathy.
"While we appeal this ruling to the California Supreme Court to protect Cathy’s freedom to operate her bakery in peace, Cathy will continue to run her bakery and serve her customers as she always has.”
The case landed in Kern County court in 2018, when the California Civil Rights Department first filed suit against Tastries.
In their complaint, the CRD accused Tastries and Miller of violating the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act by refusing to provide a custom cake for the wedding of Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio.
According to court documents, Tastries has a written policy provided to customers stating that Miller will not provide custom cakes that conflict with her religious beliefs, including cakes that exhibit "explicit sexual content," "casual drug use," "anything offensive, demeaning or violent," any design "depicting gore, witches, spirits, and satanic or violent content," and any "requests that violate fundamental Christian (principles)." The policy state this includes any cakes that "contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman."
The policy states that any multi-tiered cake which requires a pre-order for a specific date of completion is defined as a "custom cake," whether the customer requests a specific design of their choice or selects a design from the bakery's roster of pre-existing designs.
According to court documents, Miller both regularly serves and employs LGBT individuals.
However, she blanketly refuses to provide custom pre-ordered cakes for same-sex weddings, as she said such work would require her to actively personally participate in a ceremony she believes violates God's laws, as expressed in the Bible.
Instead, Miller refers such orders to a different bakery nearby, which is willing to provide those services.
According to court documents, Miller had done so on at least four prior occasions, without any negative repercussions, until Rodriguez and Del Rio complained to the state and launched the action against Tastries.
According to court documents, the couple selected a simple three-tier design with white buttercream frosting. That design was "popular," and was often used for a range of events, including weddings, baby showers and quinceaneras, among others.
According to court documents, the design was one featured on a sample cake regularly on display in the bakery.
Miller refused their request, citing her religious beliefs, and offered to refer them to the other bakery.
The couple later obtained a cake with a similar design from another, unidentified baker.
Nonetheless, the state sued Tastries over the matter.
A successful ruling in favor of the CRD and the couple could result in substantial fines, including as much as three times actual damages and penalties of at least $4,000 per day the alleged discrimination continues.
The bakery could also face the possibility of unspecified punitive damages, damages for emotional distress and other costs, according to the CRD's website.
The action comes amid continuing actions in various states against bakers and other creative professionals, like Miller, who may cite Christian religious beliefs for their refusal to participate in same-sex weddings.
Those actions have continued despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2017, in which the high court threw out a discrimination action brought by the state of Colorado against the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop for his refusal to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the state commission had pursued Masterpiece out of an anti-religion bias and so violated the owner's religious freedom.
In the Tastries case, the state appeals court said the state didn't demonstrate similar bias against Miller over her religious beliefs, but instead focused on the alleged discrimination, regardless of the reason.
The appeals court said Miller's religious beliefs aren't relevant to the case, because the cake itself was a plain, simple design, and the state wouldn't be forcing Miller to violate her religious beliefs by requiring her to deliver a "plain, white, three-tiered cake with flowers ... an ordinary commercial good in every sense," to the Rodriguez-Del Rio wedding.
"If the mere act of providing and/or delivering a predesigned product for use at a same-sex wedding conveys a message of celebration and endorsement for same-sex marriage, a baker could potentially refuse to sell any goods or any cakes for same-sex weddings as a protected form of expression; but this would be a denial of goods and services that likely goes 'beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public .…” the appeals court panel wrote.
"Expanded logically, this reasoning would extend to a whole range of routine products and services provided for a wedding or wedding reception, including those highly visible items like jewelry, makeup and hair design for the wedding party, table centerpieces, stemware and alcohol for a toast, and catering displays. This is tantamount to business establishments being 'allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons,'" the justices wrote.
The decision was authored by Justice Kathleen Meehan. Justices Jennifer R.S. Detjen and M. Bruce Smith concurred.
In response, attorney Charles LiMandri, of the firm of LiMandri & Jonna, who is also representing Tastries Bakery, said:
"While we are deeply disappointed by the appellate court's decision, we remain steadfast in our commitment to defending Cathy Miller's religious liberty rights. This case is not just about Cathy Miller - it's about protecting the rights of all Americans to live and work according to their deeply held beliefs.
"We will continue to fight in the courts on Cathy’s behalf to ensure that the freedom to live out her faith through her creative work is upheld and that justice is fully served," LiMandri said.