CA Judge Rules In Favor Of Bakery In Same-Sex Discrimination Case [VIDEO]

CA Judge Rules In Favor Of Bakery In Same-Sex Discrimination Case [VIDEO]

CA Judge Rules In Favor Of Bakery In Same-Sex Discrimination Case [VIDEO]

In August 2017, Tastries Bakery was hit with major social media backlash after the owner, Cathy Miller, refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. The couple in question started the ball rolling when they posted their story on Facebook.

Several months later, a lawsuit was filed against Tastries Bakery and Cathy Miller.

Later last year the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a suit against Tastries and Miller on behalf of the Rodiguez-Del Rios.

The suit claims that Miller violated the provisions of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, a law that prevents businesses from denying service to customers based on a number of factors including their religion, race, sex or sexual orientation.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe heard arguments on Friday.

On Friday Lampe grilled lawyers on both sides of the same-sex wedding cake controversy for nearly two hours, probing at the question of whether Tastries owner Cathy Miller was invoking her free speech and free exercise of religion when she rejected the request for a cake from the Rodriguez Del-Rios — and whether that invocation exempted her from following state law.

Last night, Judge Lampe issued his ruling.

Judge Lampe’s eight page ruling is well worth your time.

As the video highlights above, a key aspect of Judge Lampe’s ruling is this:

Let’s review that again. Judge Lampe correctly states that no one who has placed their FINISHED work for sale can discriminate.

However, if the product has NOT YET BEEN MADE, there’s a difference. As Lampe points out, the State of California was demanding that Tastries Bakery be compelled by the court to create a cake that had not even been thought of, and once completed would be on display supporting something that is against her conscience and her religion. 

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.” [Emphasis Added]

I couldn’t agree more. Judge Lamp posed the following questions in his ruling

Should the court order a GLBT baker to bake a cake for a Catholic couple knowing the teachings of the Catholic Church are against same-sex marriage? No

Should a court order one side of a debate shut down in favor of the other side. NO

Should a court take sides in the marketplace of ideas? No. The court must remain neutral

Should a court guarantee that feelings won’t be hurt, or no one is insulted during the exercise of Free Speech? No

To me, that is the additional key point we should all remember. Just because someone will potentially suffer indignity or insult from someone else’s choice is NOT a reason to deny anyone their Constitutional protections. I would hope that Rodriquez and Del Rios would recognize that salient fact and realize that if they can demand that someone’s rights be taken away; the very same thing could happen to them.

Most certainly Cathy Miller is happy with Judge Lampe’s ruling yesterday.

I do have to wonder as I’m sure many in the legal field are, how this ruling could impact Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Supreme Court case? We will have to wait and see. 

Now, this case is not yet finished, as the ruling is a preliminary injunction.

Could a higher court overturn the injunction? Yes, but let’s hope common sense and the rule of law will prevail. In the meantime, we can and should celebrate the true winner of yesterday’s court ruling.

Our Constitutional right to Free Speech.

Written by

13 Comments
  • parker says:

    Sheesh, the couple could have easily found a bakery that would bake their cake. They probably learned the owner was known as a devout Christian before going to her shop.

  • GWB says:

    Judge Lampe correctly states that no one who has placed their FINISHED work for sale can discriminate.

    However, if the product has NOT YET BEEN MADE, there’s a difference.
    I’m not as big a fan of this as some. I think you ought to be able to decide, PERIOD. Mind you, I would have embraced this distinction just a few years ago, and I’m happy at least this much is being protected. But we won’t be truly free until I can not only practice my right of FREE SPEECH, but my right of FREE ASSOCIATION.

    let’s hope common sense and the rule of law will prevail.
    I don’t see this as a likely outcome in the near future. We’ve got to scrub out a lot of mold and mildew from the system, and sandblast a lot of rust away, then put on a new protective coating, before we can claim any sort of victory with “common sense” and “rule of law”.

  • Scott says:

    Spot on Parker, it’s no secret that is exactly what happened in the Masterpiece cake situation. Having worked in that area at the time, I happen to know there is a gay bakery less than 5 miles away. They had options, and they chose the one that would get them notoriety…

    • Matthew W says:

      ” gay bakery less than 5 miles away”
      Why aren’t there more bakeries that are run by gays?
      Seems to be a huge business opportunity for entrepreneurial homosexuals.

  • Doug Purdie says:

    Did Cathy Miller turned down the prospective customers soley because they are homosexual? A business owner should not be able to choose which paying customers to serve or not serve. Should a Muslim owned bakery be able to refuse service to a customer who will serve the cake at a Barmitzvah? Could an atheist tailor refuse to alter someone’s tuxedo to be worn at a Catholic Confirmation?
    Or did Cathy Miller refuse to bake a certain kind of cake? There is a major difference. Its OK to refuse to produce a thing or provide a service because of the thing or service itself. It’s another to refuse business because of who the customer is.
    Example: Gay couple enter a bakery and want to buy a two-door, red, convertable Camero. “Sorry”, says the bakery owner, “We don’t sell cars, even to heterosexuals.” Or, gay couple wants to buy a cake decorated with two women kissing. “Sorry”, says the proprietor, “We don’t sell same sex couple kissing decorations, even to heterosexuals.”

    • Nina says:

      Sir, as noted in the blog post, the judge specifically said in his ruling that the court cannot force a GLBT business to bake an as yet unbaked cake for a catholic business.

      In other words, the court cannot force an atheist tailor or a muslim owned bakery to craft something that is not yet made for a customer that the shop owner does not agree with.

      Furthermore, if you read the ruling, the couple asked Miller to design and craft something for their wedding. She said no and sent them to a bakery who would do so.

      Sir, just because someone says no doesn’t mean we should then demand a court of law make a person or business turn around and say yes just because we were personally insulted.

      Thanks for your comments!

      • Doug Purdie says:

        OK Nina, so the court cannot force a business to “…craft something that is not yet made…”, which implies it’s about the thing not the customer. Did the customer order something objectionable or was it just an ordinary wedding cake? What if the gay couple ordered an ordinary wedding cake and did not specify how it would be used, but the business owner knew the customers were gay?
        I get the court ruling. I just disagree with that ruling if it means that a business has the right to refuse service to anybody that is gay, Muslim or atheist if what they order is not yet made, just because the customer is gay, Muslim or atheist.

        • Max says:

          I disagree, your specious “what ifs” are irrelevant.

          Hey, I’m a happy guy. “Don we now our gay apparel” – does that mean that homosexuals alone get to participate in holidays?

          I object to you and others of your ilk appropriating and twisting our language.Homosexuals are not “gay”, they are homosexuals. If you can’t own up to it, that’s nobody’s fault but your own. This bull of trying to sugarcoat reality by calling it something different, like “gay”, does’t fly.

    • GWB says:

      A business owner should not be able to choose which paying customers to serve or not serve.
      Bullhockey. That’s EXACTLY what they should be able to do, since they are not slaves, but free citizens who have a free RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION.

    • GWB says:

      People somewhere along the way (during the 60s civil rights movement) confused the idea that a GOVERNMENT should be treating everyone exactly equally with the idea that CITIZENS had to do so.

      Sorry, but that’s nowhere within either the Constitution (not even the 14th Amendment), nor within the bounds of the principles upon which our country was founded. Period.

  • Jesse says:

    You need to see this Louder-with-Crowder link to understand the hypocrisy. Crowder goes into a Muslim bakery: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
    Where’s the lawsuit?

    The Rodriguez Del-Rios could have gone to another bakery but this behavior is a money-maker for them.

  • Timmy says:

    All this over a cake. If you don’t want my money I’ll take it elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram