Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

California baker wins case after refusing to make wedding cake for gay couple

Bakersfield’s Tastries Bakery had been sued by the state’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment

Graeme Massie
Los Angeles
Monday 24 October 2022 23:12 BST
Comments
Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, Calif., speaks with The Californian in 2018.
Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, Calif., speaks with The Californian in 2018. (AP)

A judge has ruled in favour of a California bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple because she said it violated her religious beliefs.

Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield had been sued by the state’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment arguing that owner Cathy Miller violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act in discriminating against the couple.

Ms Miller’s lawyers had argued that her right to free speech and free expression of religion outweighed the legislation.

Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled on Friday that Ms Miller had acted lawfully in sticking by her Christian beliefs in marriage.

“I’m hoping that in our community we can grow together,” Ms Miller told The Bakersfield Californian. “And we should understand that we shouldn’t push any agenda against anyone else.”

The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, said they expected an appeal in the case.

“Of course, we’re disappointed, but not surprised. We anticipate that our appeal will have a different result,” Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio told the newspaper.

Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio listen closely during a hearing in 2018. (AP)

A previous decision in Kern County Superior Court also went Ms Miller’s way but was eventually vacated by the 5th District Court of Appeal.

Ms Miller had refused to make a cake for the couple back in 2017 and referred them to another bakery.

The judge ruled that baking the cake was an “artistic expression” and was protected under the First Amendment.

“[The department] failed to prove that defendants intentionally discriminated against Eileen and Mireya because of their sexual orientation,” the judge ruled.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in