California: Judge Rules Baker Is Not Required to Bake Lesbian Wedding Cake

Wiki
image_pdfimage_print
Bakersfield, California: Judge David Lampe ruled against forcing Cathy Miller, owner of Tasteries Bakery, to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, because it would violate her First Amendment rights. However, he said that, if the couple wanted to buy an already-made cake, Miller would be required to sell it to them to comply with the state’s anti-discrimination law. -GEG

A California court has ruled that a Christian baker cannot be forced to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because it would violate her First Amendment rights — a decision that runs against a national trend of cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled Monday that it would have been impermissible for baker Cathy Miller, who operates the Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, to refuse to sell a cake that was already made to a same-sex couple. However, forcing her to bake a new cake would have been an impermissible form of coercion, he ruled.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

A wedding cake, even one without an inscription, “is an artistic expression by the person making it,” Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe said Monday in a ruling denying a state agency’s request to require the bakery owner, Cathy Miller, to comply with California’s antidiscrimination law.

“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,” Lampe said. “The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the state’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace.”

Read full article here…

Related Post

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Chrisrrrr Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
rrrr
Guest
rrrr

Arbitrary. Nothing clear about this decision.

Chris
Guest
Chris

Here’s another example of an INSTITUTIONAL CON. This CON involves at least 3 tiers, maybe 5, depending on your values. The CON is this: HOMOS were TABOO in American society till recently, but THAT crux issue isn’t even addressed. INSTEAD, the criminals who masterminded this SOCIAL VALUES coup, did it by REDIRECTING YOUR FOCUS on an ancillary issue that, incidentally, accomplishes ANOTHER ONE of their agendas: CONFUSE MORALS IN SOCIETY so nobody can discern between RIGHT AND WRONG. This is classic SUBTERFUGE. What is the ancillary issue? “PERSONAL FREEDOMS”. However, “individual rights” is not the same as “personal freedoms”, and… Read more »