Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

California Judge Rules Against Gay Couple, Says ‘Cake in Question is Not Yet Baked’

California Judge Rules Against Gay Couple, Says ‘Cake in Question is Not Yet Baked’

“The government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

Get ready for the backlash. Judge David Lampe in Kern County, located in California, ruled against a same-sex couple after they sued Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller because she did not want to bake them a wedding cake.

Key distinction? Miller has not yet baked the cake.

Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio married in December 2016 and decided to have a ceremony with friends and family in October 2017. They planned for a wedding cake and after they tasted a few bakeries, decided to try out cakes at Miller’s Tastries.

An employee showed them display cakes and took down an order before she booked an official cake testing date. When that day came, Miller apologized to the couple and offered to send their order to a competitor who would bake and sell them a cake.

In October 2017, the couple “filed an administrative complaint with the State, alleging that Defendants violated the Unruh Act by denying them full and equal services on the basis of sexual orientation.”

California issued the Unruh Act in 1959, named after its author Jesse Unruh, that outlaws discrimination based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.”

From the ruling:

Lampe also points out that the court would not force a baker who favors gay rights if he or she refused to bake a cake for a Catholic couple due to their religion’s stance on same sex marriage:

“This court has an obligation to protect Free Speech, regardless of whose foot the shoe is on,” wrote Lampe. “The court takes judicial notice, not of the content, but of the fact, that before the hearing on this matter there was a gathering in front of the courthouse where both sides of the debate voiced their views. Would this court order one side or the other to be quiet? Such an order would be the stuff of tyranny.”

Here’s the kicker: “The government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”

In his analysis, Lampe writes about to cases concerning the Unruh Act:

He concluded:

The Unruh Act is neutral on its face and does not per se constitute a direct restraint upon religion. In fact, by its terms, the Unruh Act itself protects religious discrimination in the marketplace. By its term it does not constitute an indirect restraint. There is also no evidence before the court that the State is targeting Christian bakers for the Unruh Act enforcement under these circumstances. Designing and creating a cake, even a wedding cake, may not in and of itself constitute a religious practice under the Free Exercise clause. It is the use that Miller’s design effort will be put to that causes her to object. Whether the application of the Unruh Act is these circumstances violates the Free Exercise clause is an open question, and the court does not address it because the case is sufficiently resolved upon Free Speech grounds.

Again, this case is about free speech:

Lampe also reminds the gay couple that Miller has already entered in an agreement with a competitor to take over same-sex marriage wedding cakes, WHICH IS WHAT SHE DID WHEN SHE REFUSED THIS COUPLE SERVICE.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING VS CATHY’S CREATIONS, INC. by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

What I asked the Liberals I knew:

Should a feminist photographer be allowed to decline a BDSM photo session because she feels it would promote violence against women?

Should a Jewish seamstress be allowed to decline making Nazi costumes for the local KKK rally?

Or should they lose their livelihoods and be imprisoned?

I stopped supporting gay rights after this. I start tolerating gays once they demonstrate they will tolerate the rights of people other than themselves.

    gonzotx in reply to Fen. | February 6, 2018 at 1:50 pm

    Well said

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Fen. | February 6, 2018 at 2:08 pm

    Excellent points/questions!

    Some one on another web site pointed out that all the
    Gay BLT orgs have now been taken over by Femi-Nazi Lesbians…
    and that is why their total focus has been on insane issues such as the 67 different genders in 57 states, etc.

      Thanks. Use them as your own, improve them, run with them if you want. No attrib necessary – it’s the message not the credit that’s important here.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Fen. | February 6, 2018 at 2:53 pm

        Thanks.

        FYI – if you haven’t already seen this, you might enjoy it.

        “Last week, Jimmy Kimmel, the late-night talk show host with a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, wanted to host a segment with voters who oppose DACA. To find willing guests, ABC casting had reached out to me and fellow Trump supporters to appear on the show….

        “Immediately, I showed the mother and child my shirt, which featured the profile of young Ruben Morfin, an all-American 13-year old boy executed by an illegal alien. “He had dreams, too,” I quickly shared before Kimmel shushed me.

        He would attempt to silence me an unprecedented five times. Little did Little Kimmel realize, however, but all of us were seasoned activists trained in how to deal with fawning, guilt-trip inducing liberal media hacks….

        “Clown In Makeup Jimmy Kimmel Tries His Retarded Rhetoric on Trump Supporters; Finds Himself Outclassed”

        http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=373727

    Colonel Travis in reply to Fen. | February 6, 2018 at 2:36 pm

    Your last paragraph is exactly my position. The “don’t shove your morals down my throat” crowd has decided it’s OK to shove their morals down everyone else’s throat.

    Of course, in society someone’s morals must prevail. There is no 100% neutral morality that everyone agrees with. But the left either never understood this or they pretended it wasn’t true. I think it’s a combo of both. Regardless, the hypocrisy is off the charts but because the left has no set of values that remains constant other than, according to the left, it is allowed to change its values on a whim, they don’t think hypocrisy counts against them.

    4th armored div in reply to Fen. | February 6, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    when a gay couple go to any religions venue which opposes same sex anti biblical abominations and sue for marriage services –
    what will the response be by feds/state.city/county gov’t ?

    why not 3 or more polygamous and other associations ?

    what i never understood is why if gays want a marriage contract they will not accept a civil one. unless the real intent is the destruction of biblical norms – which the bible warned brings on the end of civilization.

      4th armored div in reply to 4th armored div. | February 6, 2018 at 2:57 pm

      how about non kosher demands of a restaurant, bakery, reception hall services of a kosher provider ?
      (i won’t ask about non-Hallel because Muslims are a protected class who will kill you if you bother them!)

Doesn’t that just take the cake….

UnCivilServant | February 6, 2018 at 1:35 pm

Public accomodation laws should be struck down as a violation of our right of freedom of association, which carried with it a freedom to not associate as a necessary component.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to UnCivilServant. | February 6, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    Touche!

      I accidentally up=thumbed your comment.

      In reality, TRUE public accommodation laws are really important. That’s why they evolved. They were essential to interstate commerce and the expansion of the nation.

      The problem came with their perversion to cover ANY commercial activity dealing with the public.

        CaptTee in reply to Ragspierre. | February 7, 2018 at 11:15 am

        The original intent of public accommodation laws was to prevent hotels and restaurants from refusing services to anyone. They have morphed without any public debate or vote into allegedly applying to all businesses and services.

        One could successfully argue that public accommodation applies to products on the shelf, but now way should it apply to special order products, simply based on the principle that you have no right to make me do anything I don’t want to do, because that becomes a violation of the 13th Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude!

Law of the land! The court has ruled. Law of the land!

Oh, wait. Leftists didn’t get the outcome they desired, so they’ll judge shop for an appeal until they get their way.

    They probably won’t need to go beyond the CA Supreme Court to get this overturned. But, in the highly unlikely event the CA Appeals and Surpreme Courts disappoint, they always have the possibility of taking it to the Federal Courts and feel sure the Ninth Circus will sustain the District Court’s decision to return CA values to the process and overturn Judge Lampe’s decision.

my family is an industry that sometimes provides venues for weddings. One of the other franchises got sued for refusing to host a gay wedding.

It turns out, the plaintiffs weren’t really concerned about the actual venue- they were calling everyone they could and fishing for religious objectors so they could sue.

I forget how much it has cost the family, but I recall the magnitude into the tens of thousands.

Hmm.
Gay couple moves to a rural setting. Their plumbing breaks.
The only plumber nearby refuses to repair their plumbing due to religious reasons.
I wonder how this ruling affects that situation.
What if the plumber installed the plumbing for the previous owner with a warranty which is still in effect?

    Vancomycin in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 2:11 pm

    Once you can show how plumbing is equal to speech, then we’ll talk. Until then, you could stop with the sophistric arguments.

    Fen in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 2:26 pm

    Read the decision. Plumbing is not defined as artistic expression, despite what some plumbers pretend.

    By the same token, the ruling would not protect the bakers if they refused to sell a generic chocolate cake to gays.

    That last point dovetails with someone else’s remark above – in one of the cases the gay couple had been customers of the baker for years. And he happily sold them all the cookies, cupcakes and cakes they could buy. If you refuse to understand why a wedding cake is different then there is really no point in discussing this with you.

    Fen in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 2:30 pm

    And how come you didn’t catch yourself before making the bigoted stereotype about rural areas? We hear so much about the enlightened tolerance of “woke” liberals. And yet they have these HUGE blindspots.

    Colonel Travis in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    Please explain what gay plumbing is?

      Ragspierre in reply to Colonel Travis. | February 6, 2018 at 2:47 pm

      All the joints are either male or female, but never both?

        Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | February 6, 2018 at 4:11 pm

        That’s funny. Yes, just bought materials to re-do some things after getting a new pool pump and it’s discriminatory how no store sells gay PVC. I demand male on male joints that won’t fail!

        RedEchos in reply to Ragspierre. | February 6, 2018 at 4:17 pm

        That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are!

        Lots of duct tape needed by that plumber

        Edward in reply to Ragspierre. | February 7, 2018 at 9:59 am

        I’d really love for someone to provide a plumber who could explain how a joint is made without at least one side being “male” and the other side being “female”. I don’t think a Male Pipe Thread (MPT) can decide it is actually a Female Pipe Thread (FPT – same for plastic “slip” joints).

      Maybe it’s something like trans electronics. We used to have a drawer full of gender benders where I worked.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 3:02 pm

    Out here in the sticks, you’re more likely to be refused service if you are a jerk, make unreasonable demands, or don’t pay your bill. We appreciate having work.

    Immolate in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 4:49 pm

    Just what kind of plumbing is this gay couple hoping to get fixed?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    You’re that special kind of stupid aren’t you?

    Granny in reply to RodFC. | February 6, 2018 at 6:31 pm

    Please recall that the State of Vermont is about as rural as you can get and we were the first to allow legal relationships between members of the gay community.

    RodFC in reply to RodFC. | February 7, 2018 at 3:45 am

    To all the idiots. A part of my question was that the couple move to an area with only one readily available plumber. That almost by necessity requires they live in a rural area. That is the only reason that I placed their residence in a rural area.

    Thanks for derailing what might have been an interesting argument.

      Voice_of_Reason in reply to RodFC. | February 7, 2018 at 7:26 am

      RodFC, “rural” is irrelevent. plumbing is not “speech”. your last comment makes no sense. are you on drugs?

    Voice_of_Reason in reply to RodFC. | February 7, 2018 at 7:23 am

    RodFC, did you even bother to READ THE ARTICLE before you posed your completely irrelevent question???

This judge appears to have thought this through carefully, issued a well written opinion, and drawn exactly the right line.

A very rare occurrence, in my experience.

Promote him!

    plauer in reply to Wisewerds. | February 6, 2018 at 5:17 pm

    Nope, this is California. He will be impeached and jailed.

      Anonamom in reply to plauer. | February 6, 2018 at 7:41 pm

      Nope, it’s BAKERSFIELD, California. Historically, that’s more like Oklahoma than California. Although nowadays, it’s more like Northern Mexico. Lampe is of the old school/Okalahoma type.

Tastries better worry about being sued by Disney for copyright infringement.

I baked that cake that you forced me to bake.

Go ahead. Eat it.

Very good opinion – Likely that Kennedy will notice when Masterpiece is decided – Recognizing that this is compelled speech.

Unlikely that Ginsburg & co will recognize public accommidation vs compelled speech.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Joe-dallas. | February 6, 2018 at 5:24 pm

    I should add – If ginsburg likes the policy, then it is constitutional – as evidenced by her concurring opinion in obama Care
    “health care reform is good, therefore compelled commerce is constitutional”

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Joe-dallas. | February 7, 2018 at 5:37 pm

    I don’t know that Kennedy will notice anything because even though this is a well written and sound opinion they will take it directly to the 9th Circus where it will be reversed out of hand.

    Besides I have become convinced that Kennedy’s opinions are dictated by whether or not he enjoyed his last meal.

Voice_of_Reason | February 7, 2018 at 7:15 am

allahu akbar, infidels. so, in this california, can a brother go to a gay baker and command them to bake a cake memorializing the glorious event where isis brothers threw 4 gay heretics off a roof, as the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) commanded?

uh, asking for a friend.

Voice_of_Reason | February 7, 2018 at 7:18 am

zig heil, untermenchen. can any of you recommend a gay bakery? i have a friend who needs a swastika cake.

Well done, Judge.
The voice of reason in a land of snowflakes.

It seems to be a brilliantly reasoned decision by the judge. It expresses legally what we feel in our hearts.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend