VIDEO:
JUDGE RULES IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFUSED TO BAKE CAKE
FOR SAME SEX WEDDING
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28224-judge-rules-in-favor-of-christian-baker-who-refused-to-bake-cake-for-same-sex-wedding;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A California judge has affirmed the constitutional rights of a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. According to Superior Court Judge David Lampe, the public marketplace cannot compel an individual to endorse a message with which he or she disagrees.
Judge Lampe contends that wedding cakes are "artistic expressions" and are therefore at the core of the First Amendment.
"For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment," the judge said in the ruling.
Lampe's ruling contrasts with a ruling out of Colorado that stated a baker could not refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig because he said it violated his Christian faith. The couple then filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission. To avoid violating his faith as well as the court's order, Phillips has stopped making wedding cakes, which has eaten into a significant portion of his profits, according to the Washington Times. That case is now before the Supreme Court.
California has a similar public accommodation law to that of Colorado, so when Cathy Miller, owner of "Tastries" bakeshop in Bakersfield and devout Christian, refused to make a cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-De Rio's wedding, the state pursued legal action. Charles LiMandri of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund acted as Miller's lawyer.
The judge offered to hold off on making a decision in the case until the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Phillips case, but California argued that it was entitled to a decision.
According to Judge Lampe, the case would have had a different decision had the debate been over a premade cake. “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Judge Lampe wrote in his order.
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he added.
The Blaze reports that the judge also noted that Miller's recommendation that the couple go to a competitor was a factor in the ruling. “Furthermore, here the State minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent. The fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios (the couple) feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection,” the judge wrote.
And though the ruling is a win for constitutional rights, it is predicated on the notion that the government is the purveyor of individual liberties and rights.
Ron Paul, a former U.S. congressman from Texas, remarked on this very concept in 2017, following another case in which Christian bakers in Oregon were punished for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple and were ordered to pay $135,000 in fines. Paul wrote that there is a danger in asking judges whether a bakery owner's refusal to bake a cake is rooted in religious objections:
______________________________________________________
“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake,” Judge David Lampe noted in his ruling on Tuesday to deny the State’s request for a preliminary injunction. “The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.”
“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” he declared.
As previously reported, two lesbian women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, who already “married” in December 2016, approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake. Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, offered to call another baker who could accommodate them as she herself could not be a part of the event.
“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller told ABC23 News. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”
The women, upset that she had offered a referral instead of creating the cake herself, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law. Miller’s attorneys say that she received hateful messages and death threats as a result of the situation.
The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.
“California respects and celebrates diverse religious beliefs and freedom of speech, but does not create exceptions to its civil rights laws to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Director Kevin Kish said in a statement.
“After a careful review of the preliminary facts, DFEH concluded that legal intervention was warranted to ensure equal access to services and prevent harm resulting from discrimination until our investigation is complete,” he outlined.
Judge Lampe denied the State’s request for an emergency injunction in December, advising that he wanted to allow time for Miller to respond. A hearing for a preliminary injunction was held last Friday, and according to Miller’s attorneys with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, hundreds of Bakersfield residents gathered outside of the courthouse to pray for Miller prior to the hearing.
On Tuesday, Judge Lampe ruled in favor of Miller, and differentiated between not allowing a person to buy anything from one’s store because of their homosexuality, and being forced to create something that presents a message that is against one’s religion.
“The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is laudable and necessary public goal. No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds,” he wrote. “A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire.”
“No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe continued.
However, “[t]he difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he noted.
“Would this court force a baker who strongly favored LGBT rights to create and design wedding cake she had refused to a Catholic couple, in her protest of the Catholic Church’s prescription against same-sex marriage?” Lampe asked. “The answer is ‘No.’ This court has an obligation to protect free speech, regardless of whose foot the shoe is on.”
“A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct,” he also noted. “The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”
Lampe ruled that the State could not outweigh its interests with Miller’s free speech rights and noted that there were ample alternatives for the lesbian women as “Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield.”
“For the reasons stated above, the application for preliminary injunction is denied. The State cannot succeed upon the merits, and the balance of hardships does not favor the State,” he concluded.
Read the ruling in full here.
Miller’s attorneys cheered the ruling upon its release.
“Cathy would never discriminate against anyone who walks through her bakery’s doors. She will gladly serve anyone, including same-sex couples,” said President Charles LiMandri. “But Cathy will not use her artistic talents to express messages that conflict with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech.”
Judge Lampe contends that wedding cakes are "artistic expressions" and are therefore at the core of the First Amendment.
"For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment," the judge said in the ruling.
Lampe's ruling contrasts with a ruling out of Colorado that stated a baker could not refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig because he said it violated his Christian faith. The couple then filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission. To avoid violating his faith as well as the court's order, Phillips has stopped making wedding cakes, which has eaten into a significant portion of his profits, according to the Washington Times. That case is now before the Supreme Court.
The judge offered to hold off on making a decision in the case until the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Phillips case, but California argued that it was entitled to a decision.
According to Judge Lampe, the case would have had a different decision had the debate been over a premade cake. “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Judge Lampe wrote in his order.
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he added.
The Blaze reports that the judge also noted that Miller's recommendation that the couple go to a competitor was a factor in the ruling. “Furthermore, here the State minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent. The fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios (the couple) feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection,” the judge wrote.
And though the ruling is a win for constitutional rights, it is predicated on the notion that the government is the purveyor of individual liberties and rights.
Ron Paul, a former U.S. congressman from Texas, remarked on this very concept in 2017, following another case in which Christian bakers in Oregon were punished for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple and were ordered to pay $135,000 in fines. Paul wrote that there is a danger in asking judges whether a bakery owner's refusal to bake a cake is rooted in religious objections:
Looking just at this argument means that a victory for the bakery would implicitly accept the legitimacy of laws dictating to whom private businesses must provide services, as long as an exemption is made for those with religious objections. This reduces property and contract rights to special privileges held by business owners with “sincere religious convictions.” It also allows judges, bureaucrats, and politicians to determine who is really acting on sincere religious convictions.
Paul contends that individuals should have the right to determine with whom they would like to transact:
Just as business owners have the right to decide who to do business with, individuals have the right to form any arrangement they wish as long as they do not engage in force or fraud. This includes entering into what many consider unconventional or even immoral marriage contracts. What no individual has the right to do is use government to force others to accept his definition of marriage.
Still, Miller is pleased that Judge Lampe acknowledged and upheld her rights. "Our bakery and our family feel very blessed that the judge ruled in our favor,” Miller said. “Not to say that we want to be discriminatory, but we do need to stand up for our religious freedom and our freedom of speech."______________________________________________________
Judge Rules California Can’t Force Baker to Create Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ in Violation of Her Christian Faith
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2018/02/07/judge-rules-california-cant-force-baker-to-create-cakes-for-same-sex-weddings-in-violation-of-her-christian-faith/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the State of California cannot force a baker who identifies as a Christian to create cakes for same-sex “weddings” in violation of her faith. He differentiated between selling a generic product on the shelf with having to specially create a cake that celebrates an event that her religion prohibits.“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake,” Judge David Lampe noted in his ruling on Tuesday to deny the State’s request for a preliminary injunction. “The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.”
“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” he declared.
As previously reported, two lesbian women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, who already “married” in December 2016, approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake. Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, offered to call another baker who could accommodate them as she herself could not be a part of the event.
“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller told ABC23 News. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”
The women, upset that she had offered a referral instead of creating the cake herself, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law. Miller’s attorneys say that she received hateful messages and death threats as a result of the situation.
The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.
“California respects and celebrates diverse religious beliefs and freedom of speech, but does not create exceptions to its civil rights laws to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Director Kevin Kish said in a statement.
“After a careful review of the preliminary facts, DFEH concluded that legal intervention was warranted to ensure equal access to services and prevent harm resulting from discrimination until our investigation is complete,” he outlined.
Judge Lampe denied the State’s request for an emergency injunction in December, advising that he wanted to allow time for Miller to respond. A hearing for a preliminary injunction was held last Friday, and according to Miller’s attorneys with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, hundreds of Bakersfield residents gathered outside of the courthouse to pray for Miller prior to the hearing.
On Tuesday, Judge Lampe ruled in favor of Miller, and differentiated between not allowing a person to buy anything from one’s store because of their homosexuality, and being forced to create something that presents a message that is against one’s religion.
“The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is laudable and necessary public goal. No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds,” he wrote. “A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire.”
“No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe continued.
However, “[t]he difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he noted.
“Would this court force a baker who strongly favored LGBT rights to create and design wedding cake she had refused to a Catholic couple, in her protest of the Catholic Church’s prescription against same-sex marriage?” Lampe asked. “The answer is ‘No.’ This court has an obligation to protect free speech, regardless of whose foot the shoe is on.”
“A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct,” he also noted. “The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”
Lampe ruled that the State could not outweigh its interests with Miller’s free speech rights and noted that there were ample alternatives for the lesbian women as “Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield.”
“For the reasons stated above, the application for preliminary injunction is denied. The State cannot succeed upon the merits, and the balance of hardships does not favor the State,” he concluded.
Read the ruling in full here.
Miller’s attorneys cheered the ruling upon its release.
“Cathy would never discriminate against anyone who walks through her bakery’s doors. She will gladly serve anyone, including same-sex couples,” said President Charles LiMandri. “But Cathy will not use her artistic talents to express messages that conflict with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech.”
