A Big Win for A Small Bakery: California Baker Wins Case Over Right to Refuse Cake for Lesbian Wedding

We are waiting for the potential blockbuster case of 303 Creative before the Supreme Court this term. However, a similar case just reached a final decision in California. In the case, Cathy Miller, a cake designer who owns the popular Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, California, prevailed against the Department of Fair Housing and Employment. She was sued for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, due to her religious beliefs.

The case is very similar to the Masterpiece Cake Shop case that was previously before the Supreme Court, though failed to reach a definitive result on the question of religious freedom versus state discrimination laws.

The court rejected the action filed by the Department of Fair Housing and Employment under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a 1959 state law protecting consumers from discrimination by businesses.

I have long disagreed with the focus on the religious clauses in these cases. In my view, it is all about free speech.

In this case, the bakery posted standards that said it would produce “positive” designs but included a list of designs that it would not create designs featuring drug use, explicit sexual content, “gore, witches, spirits, and satanic or demonic content,” and “design that violate fundamental Christian principals; wedding cakes must not contradict God’s sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Miller refused to bake a custom cake for a lesbian wedding in 2017 on religious grounds. Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled in 2018 in favor of Miller but the California 5th District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision. Lampe previously emphasized the free speech rights of Miller.  Lampe ruled that “the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection… [an] “interest in preventing dignitary harms . . . is not a compelling basis for infringing free speech.”

In the new ruling, Judge Eric Bradshaw again found that Miller had a constitutionally protected right to refuse to bake a custom cake for a lesbian wedding in 2017 on religious grounds. Bradshaw found that “Miller’s only motivation, at all times, was to act consistent with her sincere Christian beliefs about what the Bible teaches regarding marriage.” He added “[t]hat motivation was not unreasonable, or arbitrary, nor did it emphasize irrelevant differences or perpetuate stereotypes.”

97 thoughts on “A Big Win for A Small Bakery: California Baker Wins Case Over Right to Refuse Cake for Lesbian Wedding”

  1. Jonathan: The Masterpiece Cakeshop case has produced other progeny. In the present case Cathy Miller, a cake designer, wears her religious bigotry on her sleeve. She won’t design a wedding cake with a “design that violates fundamental Christian principles, wedding cakes must not contradict God’s sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman”. In Obergefell the Supreme Court ruled a gay couple had the constitutional right to marry. But in Miller’s world that doesn’t mean a lesbian couple can celebrate their union by buying a wedding cake from her. Of course, Clarence Thomas would readily overturn Obergefell–showing his own bigotry. Judge Bradshaw seems to think like Thomas because he ruled Miller’s religious beliefs are “not unreasonable, or arbitrary, not did it emphasize irrelevant differences or perpetuate stereotypes”. I think Judge Bradshaw got it wrong. By refusing to serve gay or lesbian couples Miller is perpetuating “stereotypes” of the LGBTQ community. It is a step backward into the closet–toward silencing gay and lesbian people in public spaces. We saw this play out in the military where the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy mandated that LGBTQ soldiers could stay in the military as long as they lied about their sexuality. Thankfully. the Pentagon realized that policy did not work and was discriminatory.

    As a free speech “absolutist” you have long argued that there should be no limits on free expression. If all opinions are equally protected, all people are equally free. In practice it doesn’t work that way. If Miller’s bigoted religious views have “free speech” protection what happens to the lesbian couple’s free expression rights? They are necessarily constrained. If they want a wedding cake from Miller they have to “self-censor”, i.e., lie about their sexuality. That’s something you often complain about re conservatives on university campuses. So in practice protecting the “free speech” rights of one person can adversely affect the “free speech” rights of other people.

    Back in 2017, before the Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided, Noah Berlatsky wrote in Quartz (12/05/17) and predicted that “minorities will no longer be welcome in public places unless they pretend to be something they are not…Tyranny is predicted on the silencing of the marginalized. Without equality, there is no free speech”. Strangely, you celebrated the Masterpiece SC ruling as you now call the Miller case a “Big Win”. For whom?

    1. Would you bake a cake with a Swastika ?

      It is not religious bigotry to refuse to bake a cake that violates your religious beliefs.

      In every one of these stupid cases. the artists who refused to have their art coopted, were perfectly willing to sell generic product to anyone gay straight or whatever.

      What they were not willing to do was be compelled to spread a message they do not beleive.

      Only left wing nuts seek to force others to kowtow.

      What is it with the left that requires you to force nuns to pay to fund abortions ?
      Or force evangelicals to renounce their beleifs on cakes ?

      If some baker will not make the cake you want – go somewhere else.

      Would you be OK forcing bakers to advocated for pedophilia on their cakes ?

      Can I hire Greta Thunberg to speak and force her to repeat endlessly “CO3 is good, CAGW is fake” ?

      Your vile little trolls – who will either force others to be silent, or better still force them to kowtow to you.

      Regardless, it would be wise not to eat a cake you forced someone else to make.
      You never know what might be in it.

      1. John Say: Last time I looked Nazis and neo-Nazis are not a protected class. Black people, gays and lesbians are. The 14th Amendment specifically gave citizenship to former slaves. It was done in a “race conscious way”. In Obergefell the SC carved special protection for gay and lesbian couples to marry. The same thing happened in the Loving decision that, ironically, is the only decision Clarence Thomas would not overturn. So, yes, I would have the perfect right to refuse to bake a cake with a big Swastika on top!

        The Q is whether a private business that opens its doors to the public can discriminate against certain customers because of their sexuality. Cathy Miller’s refusal to bake a cake for the lesbian couple was clearly a violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination statue. Judge Bradshaw found otherwise. I disagree with that decision. Does that make my view “vile little trolls” as you say? Can’t we disagree without being disagreeable?

        You will recall that during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic there was a hairdresser in SFO that refused to follow the city’s pandemic restrictions, e.g., limits on the number of customers, etc. I think she eventually went out of business. The point is that there a lot of restrictions on how businesses operate. If you own a restaurant the health and safety dept. can shut you down if you fail to maintain clean premises. You can’t claim an exception because your “sincere religious beliefs” dictate that you cannot kill any living being–including roaches and rats. I live in a gated HOA. The HOA has all sorts of restrictions (dictated by a local city ordinance) that limit what I can do with my property. I can’t park a boat next to my garage. During an election cycle I can’t display partisan political posters on my front lawn. I can’t even re-paint my house without HOA approval. The point here is that we accept a lot of restrictions on what we can do in our private and business lives. If I applied for an account on Trump’s “Truth Social” and Kevin Nunes found out I am one of Trump’s severest critics would I get an account? Probably not. So it is not “only left wing nuts [who] seek to force others to kowtow” as you erroneously claim! Right-wing “nuts” do it all the time. What about all the booking banning in public schools? Isn’t that an attempt to make teachers and students “kowtow”?

        Cathy Miller is a religious bigot. Many other religions don’t discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to be married in the church. And most bakeries don’t discriminate. Miller will ultimately be the loser because the word gets out fast in the gay community and among those who support gay rights. I would recommend Miller post a sign under her masthead that reads: “Gays and Lesbians are not welcome here!”. At least Miller could not then be accused of false advertising.

        1. I say again – don’t be ridiculous.

          Last time I looked Nazis and neo-Nazis are not a protected class. Black people, gays and lesbians are. The 14th Amendment specifically gave citizenship to former slaves. It was done in a “race conscious way”. In Obergefell the SC carved special protection for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

          The “race conscious way” is the legal theory of Brown Jackson, and not universally accepted, because amending the Constitution has from the beginning been so difficult specifically because amendments are supposed to be universally applicable. The idea of interest-group conditional amendments is about as un-originalist as they come.

          But sure, keep trying to carve out special interests. That’ll never bite you in the posterior.

        2. “The 14th Amendment specifically gave citizenship to former slaves. It was done in a “race conscious way””

          Please read the 14th amendment – the ONLY reference to race in the entire amendment is to “untaxed indians.”

          “In Obergefell the SC carved special protection for gay and lesbian couples to marry. ”
          Nope Obergefell was a 14th amendment case – that all cititzens are entitled to equal protection of the law.

          “The same thing happened in the Loving decision that”
          Nope again Loving is another Equal protection case.

          I would note ALL the cases you cite are about GOVERNMENT discrimination and Equal protection of the law.

          None have anything at all to do with private discrimination.

        3. “The Q is whether a private business that opens its doors to the public can discriminate against certain customers because of their sexuality”
          No, that is YOUR question.

          Millers question is whether YOUR unconstitutional public accomidation laws trump freedom of religion.

          The CORRECT answer is that private discrimination is constitutional.
          Regardless, absent an amendment to the constitution you idiotic public accommodation claim MUST fail when in conflict with an enumerated constitutional right.

          I would note that the right to private discrimination is actually also enumerated in the constitution in the contracts clause.
          Government is constitutionally prohibited from interfering in private contracts. Not that the government follows the constitution.

        4. “You will recall that during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic there was a hairdresser in SFO that refused to follow the city’s pandemic restrictions, e.g., limits on the number of customers, etc. I think she eventually went out of business. The point is that there a lot of restrictions on how businesses operate.”

          Yes, the government violates the constitution in its laws all the time – what is new ?

          The social contract – the rule of law, legitimate government, and SOMETIMES the US constitution,
          provide that government
          may punish the initiation of force – criminal law.
          May enforce private agreements – contract law.
          May require those who do actual harm to repair those harmed – tort law.

          Anything beyond that violates the social contract, the rule of law, the requirements of legitimate government, and often the US constitution.

          I would further note that anything beyond that also violates natural law. i.e. anything beyond that is inherently inefficient and reduces standard of living.

          Put differently – these things DO NOT WORK. Often the failures are small, regardless they are on net harmful and on net leave us worse off.

          The social contract, the rule of law, the US constitution – do not come out of thin air. Though we bend them towards the arbitrary, they are ultimately founded on free will and utilitarianism.
          i.e. what actually works.
          Not what some idiot left (or right) wing nut thinks works. Not some clod’s idea of common sense. But what as observed over millennia of human history actually works.

        5. You idiotically cited Covid.

          What covid regulations succeeded ? None.

          Not only was every single effort to thwart covid ineffective, but most were harmful in other ways.

          Much of this was knowable at the start.

          Covid had a transmission rate of 2.5-3.8 (initially Delta and Omicron are much higher).
          We have NEVER stopped any respiratory virus ones it gains a foothold – much less on this contageous.

          It was self evident to even ordinary people in April 2020 that Covid was going to infect nearly every person capable of getting Covid.

          I postulated in early 2020 that was about 1/3 of the population – that was based on the fact that on cruise ships and other optimal venues for spreading covid only 1/3 of passengers developed covid. Today that appears to be an optomistic assessment – the CDC has found from blood donation samples that 86% of donors under 20 have covid antibodies indicating they were infected int he past 6 months.

          It was established early that those who are infected become contagious before they become symptomatic.

          Another factor that is known now – but not then is that immunity is short lived. People who survive small pox – or are vaccinated will never get small pox again. While the half life of Covid immunity appears to be 6-8 months – maybe a bit longer for immunity from infection.

          All the above are FACTS.

          From those it is trivial to determine that:
          Masks and other measures will not work.
          Quarantine will not work.
          A lockdonw could in theory work – but it would have to be global, total, and probably last atleast 28 days.
          The less total and global the longer it would have to last.
          Social distancing will not work.
          Once it was know the half life of vaccine immunity was 6-8 months – it was knowable that vaccine would not work.

          The actual consequence of govenrment covid policies has been to make Covid likely endemic – arround forever.

          While if we had done nothing – ot likely would have burned through the world and been gone in several months.

          Not only did what we did – not work, it with near certainty made Covid WORSE.

          As I tried to tell you with respect to government – legitimate govenrment is founded on free will, but more fundimentally it is founded on what does and does not work. Outside of narrow domains – government makes things worse not better.

        6. “If I applied for an account on Trump’s “Truth Social” and Kevin Nunes found out I am one of Trump’s severest critics would I get an account? Probably not.”
          That is literally false.

          It is also unwise – whether it is twitter or Truth.

          Ignoring the legal aspects – siloing or silencing people with views different from our own is ultimately destabalizing.

          There are many causes to the rising crime and violence int he country – SOME of which are the specific ones claimed by those on the right.

          But one is the rise of chaos that is the direct result of the nihilism and anarchy driven by the left.

          We have seen a massive spike in anxiety and Depression – twice as much among girls as boys. this is unarguably a result of social media.
          Some of it is the consequence of the nasty way people treat each other – including domains far from politics.
          But part of it is due to “cancel culture” to private censorship.

          This drives up anxiety.

          The actual public debate of ideas, along with stable trustworthy government that changes VERY SLOWLY are requirements to aleviate stress, anxiety, depression.

          As I said there are many factors – but most of them tie in one way or another to the left.

          If this continues it WILL increasingly result in violence.

          I do nto know whether that will originate on the left, or the right, or it will just be stressed out wacko’s.
          I do not think the current rise in violent crime is specifically because criminals are going “Intersectionality justifies murder”.
          I doubt those engaged in crime have a political thought in their minds. But they are responding to the rising chaos driven by the left.

          Regardless, violence – crime but not just crime is rising, and it will continue to rise.

          All of this will continue until chaos is reigned in – and that will not come from the left.

        7. “So it is not “only left wing nuts [who] seek to force others to kowtow” as you erroneously claim! Right-wing “nuts” do it all the time.”
          You say that – yet it is not so. You claimed you would be banned from Truth – but you just assume that – you do not know.
          As I recall Truth’s TOS is that they will restrict only that speech which is illegal. That does not include left wing nuts.

          “What about all the booking banning in public schools? Isn’t that an attempt to make teachers and students “kowtow”?”
          You are free to read whatever you want. You are free as a teacher to say whatever you want
          OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.

          Rights belong to people – not government.
          There is no first amendment right for government to speak.
          Your first amendment rights as a teacher are limitless – outside of the classroom – where you are being paid to teach students what their parents have decided they need to learn – not YOUR personal preferences.

          When you take a job as a welder – you are not free to do that job however you wish.
          You are not free to use aluminum to weld Steel in a skyscraper because that is your preference.

          Students are not wards of the state, nor are they adults with all the rights of adults.
          The rights of students and the expectations of those teaching them are the domain of parents.

          Many parents suck. Many kids are capable of more freedom than they have.
          But we do not have a better system, and experimenting with drag queen story hour for toddlers will not end well.

          Whether YOU like it or not ALL parents – even left wing nut parents, will stand up to protect their kids – even when they will not do so for themselves.

        8. “Cathy Miller is a religious bigot. Many other religions don’t discriminate against gays and lesbians who want to be married in the church. And most bakeries don’t discriminate. Miller will ultimately be the loser because the word gets out fast in the gay community and among those who support gay rights.”

          True or not – none of the above is the domain of government.

          If you want to protest Miller – go for it. I may join you.

          She is free to not bake the cake of your chosing, and we are free to not buy cakes from her.

          You and I are at odds because you have involved government.

          You noted your HOA – and got lots wrong.
          HOA’s are private and can ban political signs.
          You agree to the rules of an HOA when you buy a house deed restricted to those HOA rules.
          There are some legal issues – because the law frowns heavily on long term nonnegotiable agreements, and almost never allows them to bind hears. But ignoring that HOA’s are just private contracts.

          You claimed that your local government barred political signs – that is wrong – they can’t. They can restrict the size of signs.
          They can not restrict the message.

          But generally you are incredibly poor at understanding the difference between what can be done privately and what can through government.

      2. “It is not religious bigotry to refuse to bake a cake that violates your religious beliefs.”

        It is when you are using religion to shield bigotry. Especially when claiming “deeply held religious beliefs” which is more of a cop-out than anything else.

        “Would you bake a cake with a Swastika ?”

        I would if I still got paid for the job. However there is a fine line between putting messages and symbols on a cake and just decorating it.

        As many of these bakers have noted they have no problem selling gay couples or gay wedding parties a cake as long as they don’t put anything on the cake that supposedly “supports” their lifestyle or choice. This is doesn’t bode well for their claim that their objection is due to a “deeply held religious belief”. If it was truly a deeply held religious belief, selling the couple a barebones cake would still be seen as “supporting” their lifestyle because they are making an exception.

        Is design conveying a message? Or is design merely a structural component of the cake? Because the argument seems to be that their work in creating the designs is what “supports” or “promotes” the marriage or lifestyle they object to. But they are still willing to put in the work to create the cake itself with a bland design and don’t find this to be an issue in selling a gay couple a cake. A bland design still requires the work of the baker does it not?
        What does that say about a “deeply held religious belief”? Shouldn’t it be an outright refusal to make a cake be considered a “deeply held religious belief”?

        There is precedent on forcing bakers to put massages as in written form or symbols on cakes that the baker does not agree with as unconstitutional. However the that doesn’t mean that the baker can provide the icing so the customer can put the message on.

        If all the couple is asking for is a standard wedding cake meaning a bland run of the mill design which includes the usual decorations how would a more elaborate design change the impression that the baker is NOT promoting their lifestyle against their “deeply held religious belief”?

        What is the difference between offering a cake off the shelf which WAS still created by the baker and a simple wedding cake design with equal minimal amount of work? The cake would still be used for the wedding how would that not be construed as promoting the event? I seems that the mere presence of the cake itself at the event should be enough imply promotion of the gay wedding. That would still be a violation of the “deeply held religious belief”.

        1. ““Would you bake a cake with a Swastika ?”
          I would if I still got paid for the job.”
          I should have expected that you have no principles.

          “However there is a fine line between putting messages and symbols on a cake and just decorating it.”
          The line is not fine, thought that is irrelevant.
          In these cases gay and lesbians are asking for custom cakes from people who DESIGN custom cakes.
          They have been offered standard cakes that are “just decorated”.

          “As many of these bakers have noted they have no problem selling gay couples or gay wedding parties a cake as long as they don’t put anything on the cake that supposedly “supports” their lifestyle or choice. This is doesn’t bode well for their claim that their objection is due to a “deeply held religious belief”. If it was truly a deeply held religious belief, selling the couple a barebones cake would still be seen as “supporting” their lifestyle because they are making an exception.”
          Stupid and false.
          The one is an example of tolerance.
          The other an instance of being forced to offer a message you do not beleive in.
          I am not aware of any religious objection to lesbians that bars proving them with food, shelter.
          In fact deeply held christian beleives require providing food and shelter.
          Christ hung out with prostitutes – but he did not engage in prostitution.

          You have no clue what hypocracy is, or what constitutes violating a religious beleif.

          “Is design conveying a message?”
          Of course it is.

          ” Or is design merely a structural component of the cake?”
          It is both.

          “Because the argument seems to be that their work in creating the designs is what “supports” or “promotes” the marriage or lifestyle they object to. But they are still willing to put in the work to create the cake itself with a bland design and don’t find this to be an issue in selling a gay couple a cake. A bland design still requires the work of the baker does it not?”
          Yes, this is not about work.

          “What does that say about a “deeply held religious belief”?”
          What did Christ hanging arround with prostitutes say about prostitution ?

          ” Shouldn’t it be an outright refusal to make a cake be considered a “deeply held religious belief”?”
          Why is it that you think you get to decide ?

          “There is precedent on forcing bakers to put massages as in written form or symbols on cakes that the baker does not agree with as unconstitutional. However the that doesn’t mean that the baker can provide the icing so the customer can put the message on.”
          Not the question being decided. Regardless, anyone can make their own cake, find a baker that will agree to make the cake they want, or have a cake made and then add decorations or messages of their own.

          “If all the couple is asking for is a standard wedding cake meaning a bland run of the mill design which includes the usual decorations how would a more elaborate design change the impression that the baker is NOT promoting their lifestyle against their “deeply held religious belief”?”
          You are delving in great detail into questions that are not part of these cases.

          The RIGHT answer is for govenrment to stay out of this.
          If the baker refuses to sell to a customer because they wore a green shirt today – that is betweent he buyer and seller – not the government.

          If the seller is being a hypocrite – that is between them and god. It has nothing to do with you, I or the government.

          “What is the difference between offering a cake off the shelf which WAS still created by the baker and a simple wedding cake design with equal minimal amount of work? The cake would still be used for the wedding how would that not be construed as promoting the event?”
          It is irrelevant how YOU construe something, what matters is how the Baker does.

          “I seems that the mere presence of the cake itself at the event should be enough imply promotion of the gay wedding. That would still be a violation of the “deeply held religious belief”.”
          Again you constantly seem to beleive you (acting as government) are entitled to judge the religious principles of another and how THEY decide to apply them.

          You are not.

      3. A recent discovery of the writings of Voltaire, has opened a world of insite for me, specifically the following. “Those who can get you to believe absurdities, can get you to commit atrocities.” I have this emblazened on the back of my truck

        1. We have spent thousands of years getting where we are.
          It is not perfect.
          But we know it works – we are here, and it works well enough that standars of living throughout the world are doubling ever 40 years.

          Conversely statism, big government, socialism – in all forms has failed every time it has been tried.
          Most of those failures have been incredibly bloody.

          The odds of some barely adult coming up with anything better is nil.

          We should be constantly seeking to improve – CARFULLY.
          Any idiot who thinks that the recent past was inherently evil and irredeemable
          should have to live 100 years Before that.

          Minorities in America had a choice – they could live in the allegedly most racist country in the world.
          Or the ones where they are the majority – often the entirety of the country.
          They or their ancestors chose here.
          And they and we are better for it.
          Perfect ? No. Nut america is that light up on a hill.
          American is great, and we seek to share what makes us great with the world.
          Not conquer it.

    2. Lesbian couples are free to express themselves however they please.

      NO ONE is free to force others to speak as they wish.

      The fact that you do not understand that makes you both immoral and very dangerous.

      The right of gay couples to freely express themselves, does not exist it others are not also free to express themselves.

      That we have to discuss this today is evidence of how morally corrupt the left has become.

      1. “NO ONE is free to force others to speak as they wish.”

        Interesting. Does that apply to Texas legislators forcing social media to carry a politician’s speech as well? They are forcing others to carry someone else’s speech they don’t agree with.

        1. TX is not forcing SM to speak.
          It is forcing them to not SILENCE others.

          Absolutely no one is seeking to control what SM companies can say with their own voices.

          I personally disagree with the TX law – this problem will eventually sort itself out on its own.

          But I do not disagree because TX is violating someones rights – they are not.
          I disagree because government is very rarely the solution. Free markets will work this out.

          I am far more interested in the LA lawsuit were members of government were indirectly driving SM censorship.
          That is absolutely unconstitutional and there must be DRACONIAN consequences.

    3. Mr. Berlatsky has been proven wrong.
      Not only are you free to be what you are.
      but increasingly minorities are as free to be what they are in public and our children’s schools as in the bedroom.

    4. Dennis:

      They have a right to get married. They do not have the right to force any artist to create any custom artwork against their will. They do not have the right to force anyone to participate in their ceremony against their will.

      Transgender people do not have the right to force a baker to create a custom cake with the compelled speech that all it takes for a man to become a woman is to think it so.

      A Republican does not have the right to force a painter to paint a scene depicting Donald Trump victorious.

      A Democrat does not have the right to force a sculptor to custom create a sculpture of Hillary Clinton against her will.

      Any customer can buy ready made products off the shelves. Customers cannot force artists to create custom works against their will. They don’t have to “self censor.” They could buy a blank cake and decorate it with whatever cake topper they wish. They cannot force anyone to pick up an icing bag and draw images or words against their will. This isn’t a Communist country.

      They’re artists, not slaves.

      1. I do not care if it is something off the shelves. Each of us should be free to decide who we will enter into an agreement with.

        We should be free to buy/sell hire/fire, … for whatever reasons we wish – even stupid hateful biggoted ones.

        In the real world you can not actually stop people from making choices for bad reasons, you can only force them to be silent about their reasons.

        Further in the real world discrimination happens all the time. Discrimination means choice. When I have one job and 100 applicants – I must choose.

        But the forms of discrimination the left fears are rare and generally self punishing.

        Why in the world would a gay or trans couple wish to buy a wedding cake from someone who refuses to make one ?

        why would a black person want a job with a racist ?

        And the reverse is also true.

        Jim Crow laws came about because racist southerners would STILL sell groceries to blacks.
        Given a choice between making a buck and our personal bigotries – overwhelmingly the choice is to make a buck.

        We do not need laws to prevent people from self punishing acts.

        If you are upset about this baker – call for a boycott of her store.

        1. “I do not care if it is something off the shelves. Each of us should be free to decide who we will enter into an agreement with.

          We should be free to buy/sell hire/fire, … for whatever reasons we wish – even stupid hateful biggoted ones.”

          The issue is not about the inability to enter into an agreement with someone. It’s about the ability to exclude someone because of who they are where they are form or what they believe under the shield of religious belief. This was the original reasoning behind support of slavery and anti-miscegenation laws and law opposing interracial marriage. All those “deeply held religious beliefs’ fell for the same reason these bakers and web designers should. It’s still a poor excuse for bigotry. Even Jesus would not support the idea of not making a cake for a gay couple. He would just say, “bake the cake for it is a mere thing. It’s more important to love your neighbor than to worry about what your cake supports”.

          Besides, who remembers what the cake was like long after the wedding is over. The baker still has to compete against the caterers, DJ?, Theme? No?

          1. “The issue is not about the inability to enter into an agreement with someone. It’s about the ability to exclude someone because of who they are where they are form or what they believe under the shield of religious belief. ”
            False and irrelevant. There are myriads of factors regarding agreements or choosing not to enter and agreement, the choice to exclude often being one.

            The constitution provides specific protections – those are from GOVERNMENT.

            “This was the original reasoning behind support of slavery and anti-miscegenation laws and law opposing interracial marriage.”
            You are off in never never land as usual. Slavery, anti-miscegenation, and jim crow are all systems of LAWS – i.e. ACTS OF GOVERNMENT.

            While government is specifically barred from discriminating based on Race and religion – government is also required to provide equal protection – a part of “the rule of law” – i.e. it is required to treat all the same under the law. Even without the constitutional prohibitions against racial and religious discrimination – Equal protection, the social contract, and the rule of law would require govenrment to be blind to race, sex, orientation, ….

            But absolutely NONE of that applies PRIVATELY. While various forms of PRIVATE discrimination may arguably be immoral, they can not constitutionally be illegal.

            “All those “deeply held religious beliefs’ fell for the same reason these bakers and web designers should. It’s still a poor excuse for bigotry. Even Jesus would not support the idea of not making a cake for a gay couple. He would just say, “bake the cake for it is a mere thing. It’s more important to love your neighbor than to worry about what your cake supports”.
            Besides, who remembers what the cake was like long after the wedding is over. The baker still has to compete against the caterers, DJ?, Theme? No?”

            I do not disagree with anything that you are saying – only your presumption that because you and I agree that specific private conduct is immoral, that we can make it illegal.

            This is a major point of stupidity on your part.

            You beleive that J6 protestors are wrong about the Election, and because they are wrong, their actions are illegal.

            That is complete nonsense.

            Nazi’s are about as wrong as people can get – yet they are free to march – protest, in Jewish neighborhoods.

            In the US your opinion – or even demonstrable fact that someone else is WRONG, does not prevent them from protesting, speaking,
            assembling. petitioning government.

            The Nazi’s can march through Skokie chanting “Kill the Jews”. The KKK can march through Harlem chanting “Kill all N$#$s”.
            This is repugnant, immoral, evil, and LEGAL.

            Free speech – including hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, lies, are all not only allowed, they are REQUIRED.

            We can not know the truth without hearing the best arguments of those we are most sure are wrong.
            If all you know is your own side – you know little of that.

            I beleive that SM censorship is stupid and destabilizing – but aside from ending government special protections for SM platforms, and Barring government from attempting to influence that censorship in any way – SM platforms like all of us can PRIVATELY censor as we please.

            Those like you CONSTANTLY miss the distinction between Private and government, and seem to pretend that such distinctions can be overcome by slight of hand.
            Govenrment may not censor – directly or by influencing private actors.

            All that said – nearly all censorship is net BAD.

            I WANT Der Sturmer on FaceBook – not because I agree with them on anything. But because I want them to have a clear public platform to spew their vile hatred. That tells us who they are, and how consequential they are.

            Right now we have DOJ/FBI manufacturing faux statistics regarding purported right wing terror groups – this according to our president is the greatest danger this country faces.
            That is an absolutely absurdly stupid claim – one not supported by evidence. And a claim we would be even more certain was false, if these alleged right wing dangerous groups were allowed on FB and Twitter and ….

            We would not be guessing about hypothetical malignant actors deep in the shadows – we would KNOW who they are and much of what they were up to. And today we would KNOW they are no threat at all.

            I would further note that contra the left – Truth is not determined by concensus. It is determined by testing in the cruicible.

            This was a major Covid failure – but it applies accross the board.

            What the left calls Covid disinformation is Exactly what all of us needed to hear.

            Do masks work ?
            The answer is NOT what does CDC say.
            The answer is what do the studies say.
            Pubic debate answers those questions – even if the answer is more study is needed.

            Slowly the entire “expert” covid narative is coming apart.
            What the left deemed as Misinformation has in nearly all cases proven the truth.

            It is actually unusual for the “experts” to be so completely colossally wrong.
            But a major factor in those gargantuan errors was the censorship of contradictory claims.

            The “experts” are likely to be wrong most of the time – that is actually how real science works.
            But they are likely to be wrong far more of the time if they are not subject to challenge.

            Nothing is more dangerous to truth than censorship.
            None of us can tell what is true, if we do not hear all sides.
            Not even the experts.

            You can rant and rave about how wrong those who oppose you are.

            You may not use force to silence them.

            And that is literally what J6 was all about.
            Our Government used force to prevent election protestors from sending their message to congress.

            It does not matter whether you think they are right.
            It does not matter that you think the election was “perfect”.
            It does not matter than you think they were trying to use their LOAD voices to influence senators and representatives to do something you opposed.
            It was their RIGHT to do so.

            You keep trying to claim that people excercising legitimate rights are criminals.

            That ends badly for the country, and likely for you.

            1. Your mentioning of science reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. I suspect this fellow knows what he’s talking about: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. The experts who are leading you may be wrong. Science alone, of all the subjects, contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers…” –Richard Feynman

      2. Karen S.: Ok. So let’s be consistent. Suppose I own a vegan restaurant and I have a “sincerely held religious belief” that all living things should not be killed, The city’s health dept. thinks otherwise. They say I have to hire an exterminator and get rid of all the roaches and rats in my kitchen. Should my religious beliefs trump public health and safety?

        And there are other cases that don’t involve hypotheticals. What about book banning and the censoring of teachers in Florida and other GOP controlled states? Under Gov. DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” law school teachers can’t discuss gay or other sexuality issues. Books that deal with gay and racial issues have been taken off school library shelves. Even some of the classics have been removed because they are perceived as being “left-wing propaganda” or an attempt to “indoctrinate” school kids. Isn’t this the “Communist country” you complain about when it comes from the “left”? Should teachers be “slaves” by having to “self censor”? So let’s see if you are really consistent when it comes to other important issues. Notice that Turley has never discussed book banning or censoring school teachers because it doesn’t fit his view that all suppressions of “free speech” are coming from the “left”. How does the above fit into your paradigm?

        1. “Suppose I own a vegan restaurant and I have a “sincerely held religious belief” that all living things should not be killed, The city’s health dept. thinks otherwise. They say I have to hire an exterminator and get rid of all the roaches and rats in my kitchen.”

          Rights sometimes conflict. That is when people have to better understand what they are talking about because things get a bit murky.

          The vegan owner doesn’t have to kill anything. He just can’t serve food that is contaminated.

          1. Anonymous: Can’t believe I got at least one admission out of you. You admit “rights sometimes conflict” and when discussing these issues they get a “bit murky”. Exactly my point but the issue is not “murky”. If you operate a restaurant there are occupancy limits, the size of you outdoor signs, parking restrictions, etc. And you are wrong that “the vegan owner doesn’t have to kill anything”. The owner must hire an exterminator to eliminate the threat of contamination or his/her business will be shut down until that happens.

            There are other cases that prove my point. For a long time restaurants in the South (and some places in the North) had prominent signs that read: ” Negroes not served here”–or words to that effect. Racial discrimination in public places was prevalent. It was not until the “sit-ins’ that these racist policies were challenged and eventually local jurisdictions passed anti-discrimination ordinances. Fast forward today where there is still a lot of anti-LGBTQ hysteria. The LGBT community has become the “civil rights” issue of the day. Some people would like gays and lesbians to remain “in the closet” Cathy Miller is one of those and has decided she didn’t want to bake a cake for a lesbian couple–and violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law in the process. How is the Cathy Miller case really any different then the earlier period described above? . Some on this blog cling to the belief that anti-LBGT discrimination should be permitted in public establishments. I don’t.

            So let me ask you this Q. Had you lived in the 1950s in Montgomery, Alabama would you have supported the right of white owned businesses to deny serve to Black people? Times they are a changin’. Shouldn’t the LGBT community enjoy the same rights as Black people?

            1. Dennis: That rights can conflict is not an extraordinary position to take. It might be for you because you focus on the wrong things.

              You focus solely on Democrat talking points that are ephemeral. I focus on more lasting things like the Constitution. Moreover, you conflate arguments that do not belong together. You are very confused.

              You do not seem to be able to differentiate state laws from federal laws. Nor do you seem able to look for an existing solution using the rule of law. Instead, you create non-sensical laws that eventually collapse under their own weight. Moreover, your factual knowledge of our discussions is limited and too frequently wrong, almost as wrong as Svelaz’s. The two of you must concentrate on the same fact-checkers and left-wing media.

              For example, some partisan folk named DeSantis’s educational law, the Don’t Say Gay” bill. That was to fool people like you and Svelaz into believing “teachers can’t discuss gay or other sexuality issues.” That is totally untrue. It only stops teachers from teaching things to K-3’rd grade too far ahead of their knowledge base. It doesn’t impact the teachers, parents, or students in other grades and doesn’t prevent K-3 from being educated.

              You focus on religious beliefs and exclusions based on the law, where the problem is the transmission of infection. Healthcare rules don’t discriminate based on religion, color, or sex. If one follows the rule of law, all people are treated equally, though to you, the rule of law only applies where you want it.

              The vegan owner doesn’t have to kill anything. He has to rid the place of pests that contaminate food. You erroneously extended your argument that someone was forcing them to kill. Not true. One can prepare a restaurant where no pests exist and meet the healthcare laws. Skip the leftist ideology and concentrate on the rule of law.

              Almost everything to you ends up dealing with race or something similar. I have no prejudice based on race, religion, or sex except where there is violence or interference with normal social behavior. Men do not belong in ladies dressing rooms. Blacks should not be excluded from medical school because they are black. Blacks should not be included in medical school because they are black. Colorblind is good, but the left wishes all to become racist.

              You ask me, “Had you lived in the 1950s in Montgomery, Alabama would you have supported the right of white businesses to deny service to Black people?” At about that time, when traveling in the south, I drank out of the black water fountains. When traveling in certain areas more recently, I stayed at some black motels because they were available and safer. You are the one that might be disputing MLK’s, character over color, not me.

              “Times they are a changin’. Shouldn’t the LGBT community enjoy the same rights as Black people?” Whether Black, White, Latino, Asian, etc., all should enjoy the same rights where the government is involved. Privately people have a right to be stupid or prejudiced.

              Among other things, I am a businessman. If I saw “Negroes not served here” and there was a significant Negro population with adequate finances to eat out, I would open a restaurant serving everyone and make a lot of money. The only thing that would stop me would be the government not enforcing the law or creating laws that would prevent me from doing so.

              I don’t know what is in your mind or how you think because your ideas are so loopy and discombobulated. Yes, sometimes unfairness exists. That unfairness should not be created by the government. It is the left that is causing the Black population so much difficulty. I will give one example, NYC schools. Educate the Black mind in the ghetto, and many now succeed where they haven’t succeeded before. Charter schools are the reason. They have improved the education standards of inner city Blacks and Latinos to such a degree that IMO it is cultural genocide to prevent such schools from existing. Who is trying to end those charter schools? The Democrats and leftists of NYC. That is who your fight should be with, but instead, you support the left without thinking.

              1. S. Meyer: I was addressing my comments to “Anonymous”–not you! If you are not a racist why do you say: “Blacks should not be included in medical school because they are black”.? So, just answer the Q I posed to Anonymous and remove any doubt. You didn’t answer the Q but attempted distraction by claiming you drank from “black water fountains” and, more recently, you stayed in “black motels” because they were “available and safer”. I suppose this is your desperate attempt to try to show us you are not a racist. If you are not Black I don’t believe any of this drivel! A White guy drinking from “black water fountains” and staying in “black motels” ? You can’t be serious! So stick to the point. Answer my Q to Anonymous and let me draw my own conclusions or stay out of the conversations I have with Anonymous!

                1. “S. Meyer: I was addressing my comments to “Anonymous”–not you!”

                  Dennis, this is an open blog. Anonymous was correct. You were wrong.

                  ” If you are not a racist why do you say: “Blacks should not be included in medical school because they are black”.?”

                  Because, Dennis, being black should not be the criterion for medical school admission. The schools should pick their students based on their merits. When I see a doctor, I want to know he is qualified, not that he is of a certain race, religion, or sex.

                  Why do you think being black should have anything to do with getting into medical school?

                  You say you wanted this question answered. “So let me ask you this Q. Had you lived in the 1950s in Montgomery, Alabama would you have supported the right of white owned businesses to deny serve to Black people? ”

                  After my prior answer, your question seems repetitive. Here is some of what I said.

                  “If I saw “Negroes not served here” and there was a significant Negro population with adequate finances to eat out, I would open a restaurant serving everyone and make a lot of money. The only thing that would stop me would be the government not enforcing the law or creating laws that would prevent me from doing so.”

                  That should be crystal clear, but since it wasn’t I will extend my comment. If I agreed with denying service to blacks, why would I open a restaurant to provide service to them and everyone else? You see color. I don’t. If I did, don’t you think I would have been intimidated by the folk when I drank out of a black water fountain? I provided that example because I didn’t believe people should pay attention to racist nonsense. You seem to want to create racist divides. How is that serving you?

                  1. Dennis, I see you had no problem trying to slime me and make me appear as a racist. I answered your hypothetical question with real life answers along with answering your hypothetical. Did you reply and apologize, or even recognize what I said? No. You blithely continued your ranting which has no meaning because factually you are wrong. Additionally you are unable to debate your point without sliming the opposition.

            2. Actual rights rarely if ever conflict.

              Faux rights often conflict.
              To paraphrase Rand,
              Conflicts in rights do not exist,
              when you think you have one,
              check your premises one, is with certainty wrong.

              You provide a long list of regulations that conflict with rights.
              Those regulations are wrong.
              They are also unnecessary.
              Throughout the world we have different countries etc that have different regulations. more regulations. less regulations.
              Yet, there is no real correspondence between these regulations and really pretty much anything.

              You talk of occupancy limits in restaurants – yet much of the world has greater denisity in dining areas than the US.
              People are not dying all over the world from greater occupancy.

              You talk about having to hire exterminators.
              I have a contract for exterminators in my apartment building.
              No law requires that. The city has tried to impose such a law, but they keep failing.
              Despite the fact that I have an extermination contract – I oppose the law.
              I CHOSE to have an exterminator as a benefit to me, and as a value add for my tenants.
              Do you honestly beleive very many resturaunts will remain open long if patrons find rats running arround ?
              Accross the US there are rules regarding cooking meat to prevent ecoli.
              But there is no actual scientific standard regarding what is needed to stop ecoli.
              Higher temperature cooking helps, but that is diminished if the time to serving is longer.
              But what does actually work is people quit frequenting restaurants that have ecoli outbreaks.
              In fact particularly with chain restaurants customers tank throughout the chain and the losses dwarf any penalities government could impose.
              In point of fact the primary spreader of Ecoli until 1996 has been USDA meat inspectors. Prior to that meat was tested using the same method used for 150 years – an inspector sticks a metal rod in the meat, and then sniffs it. The same rod being used over and over without cleaning.

              Pick any regulation you wish – somewhere – probably most of the world does not have that regulation with no real evidence of harm.

              The most important life safety improvement that has occured anywhere in the world has been rising standard of living.

              The higher the standard of living of the least well off the more safety in all forms they get – not from regulation,
              but because they have climbed further up Maslow’s heirarchy of needs and can afford higher order values.

              If you doubt this – how about we leave you out in the desert for 3 days and see what you are prepared to drink then.

            3. Plenty of places in the 19th century had signs that said Irish need not apply or Irish unwelcome.
              There are no laws that protect against discrimination against the Irish and yet those signs no longer exist.
              You are constantly worried about problems that solve themselves.

              The left rants about Jim Crow – FORGETTING that Jim crow was a series of racial LAWS – regulations REQUIRING people to discriminate – because in post civil War South Laws were required to FORCE white people to discriminate against blacks.
              White Business owners in 1950 did not refuse to serve blacks because that was they choice. They did so because it was the law.
              Racial separation in the south was expensive – requiring separate floors, separate entrances, separate restrooms, separate elevators, seporate water fountains. If you were familiar with the actual history – businesses Chaffed at the addition costs of segregation.
              Those costs came with no benefit.

              The left thinks Obegefell is some massive tipping point. Before that Homosexuals were locked in the closet afterwards they were free.
              Obergefell did not liberate the gay community – decades of societal decline in discrimination against gays resulted in Obegefell.

              Everything left wing nuts worry about that is of actual consequence solves itself over time – if government stays out of it.

              The actual history of regulation is extrmely discriminatory. Minimum wage laws were put in place explicitly to reduce employment for blacks and increase it for whites. And that is STILL the effect today.

              Through US history black unemployment was LOWER than whites – until the first Minimum Wages laws passed.

      3. “Under Gov. DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” law school teachers can’t discuss gay or other sexuality issues.”

        Sometimes ignorance of the law makes people say things that are foolish. This is one of those cases. Read the law.

    5. If Miller’s bigoted religious views have “free speech” protection what happens to the lesbian couple’s free expression rights?

      They are in no way constrained. Let’s say they can find NO baker willing to bake (or, more properly, decorate) their cake – there is no restriction whatsoever on their baking and decorating their own cake. It may not be as artistic as the one they want, but it will certainly draw nothing but compliments from their guests, who will view them as they want to be viewed – as brave but put-upon victims of The Patriarchy and all that jazz.

      Don’t be ridiculous.

  2. “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

    1. The American Founders and Framers made Americans free.

      The American Founders and Framers severely limited and restricted government.

      Free people are the Sovereign.

      Severely limited and restricted government is the Subject of that Sovereign.

      Owners of private property may deny entry, occupancy, products and services to the public.

      The public has no dominion over private property, but for crimes of property damage and bodily injury.

      Private property is private, and private property is not public.

      The complainants must recompense all related entities for all costs, fees and related penalties.

  3. Why on earth did the customers continue to proceed when a literal sign espoused the values of the establishment? I have to call that baiting. When I was younger and less decorous, I would have straight up called it starting sh*t. I do not agree with either side in this, but the customers were the ones trying to prove something, in my view. When a business declares in a literal, written statement that they are hardcore Christians (with a Constitutional right to their beliefs) – anything that happens after that fact is just childish provocation, and these same people would never dream of doing that to a mosque or an Islamic center. I have no sympathy for the idiots in question; this was never about a cake, and I am glad it was ruled this way. Hate the Central Valley all you like, but also note that some customers of businesses are juvenile assh***s, just stirring up trouble. I myself would forego a business with a declaration like this one. Not particularly a fan of the institutional church, myself. But so what? Lots of people can bake a cake, and we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, protected by law, in our union. I could tell stories of my youth about all of this, but I won’t bore anyone, as my personal opinion, or the way I *personally* choose to live my life is not the thing in question here, and shouldn’t be for these d**** bags, either.

    Again: I am independent that used to lean left of center. Today: I no longer vote for Democrats, period, never will again, and that is likely forever. And why, if the offended even noticed the sign, did they continue to harass the business owners? That smacks a whole lot more of entitlement to me than of ‘virtue’.

    This is an extreme illustration and not intended to be taken literally (there is a thing called a ‘mental exercise’, wherein nothing is actually happening in real life; you are just imaging outcomes) – would a Satanist ask a Christian church for a Satanist cake and expect them to go, ‘Oh, sure! We love to bake and decorate a cake that is in diametric opposition to everything believe and violates the cross.’. And vice versa. I highly doubt, that In our wildly imaginary scenario, that a Satanist cake shop would bake a cake for a Christening, either. Disagree with values all you like (I am secular, myself), but that is utterly preposterous, and under our Constitution, perfectly permittable. Nobody, under our Constitution, is going to insist a person go one way or another. Order your damn cake from someone else if you don’t want to be viewed as an utterly churlish immature fool and get on with your life. Nobody else gives a s***.

    Good luck, with an attitude like yours, with your marriage, because in real life, sh*t comes down, you do not control everything that happens to you in life, and you can’t use the courts into infinity to run away from your personal problems. And I guarantee you that in a marriage, s*** of one kind or another is guaranteed to come down. It absolutely will. Mature people do not stop loving themselves or others in the face of adversity. Grow up. What a joke.

    1. I can’t imagine eating food, or drinking a beverage, that someone was forced to make for me against their will. Just saying…..

  4. Tastries provides the service of designing and creating cakes celebrating heterosexual weddings. Tastries offers this service to all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation. Tastries does not provide the service of designing and creating cakes celebrating homosexual weddings. Tastries does not offer this service to any person, regardless of their sexual orientation. There is no discrimination as to the offering of services.

    Eileen and Mireya take the position that Tastries must provide services, beyond those it offers, on the ground that homosexual individuals want those services that Tastries does not offer to anyone. That is like a black couple going to a Swiss restaurant, demanding that the restaurant serve African cuisine, and claiming racial discrimination when refused.

    There’s a difference between non-discrimination in the provision of services, and the quality of the substantive services offered to all persons equally. The California court did a good job in describing this point on page 9 of the decision, which should be enough by itself; the additional discussion on “full and equal service,” including the Minton and North Coast decisions, is unnecessary.

  5. Just a thought: why not agree to bake the cake but charge $ 10,000 for it. When there is a disagreement about this outlandish pricing, you tell the customer something like this — “this is the cost of the cake and the added cost of compromising my deeply-held religious beliefs”

      1. I do something similar when I have garage sales:
        “How much for the lawn mower?”
        “It’s not for sale.”
        “No, really I want the lawn mower, how much?”
        “Twenty-Five thousand dollars”
        “I’ll give you ten”
        “Thirty-Thousand dollars”
        “Come on, I’m serious.”
        “Seventy-seven thousand, eight-hundred, two dollars and 49 cents.”
        …and so on. Eventually, they figured out the mower and other items without price tags were not really for sale. Oy, some people’s kids.

  6. One point to remember is that these bakeries don’t prohibit gay customers, they don’t ban anyone from buying anything they have on the shelf, they just don’t want to be forced to “perform” an artistic act with which they disagree. Think about it as if Trump wanted Barbra Streisand to sing at his inauguration and a court insisting that she do so. You cannot make someone perform some act just to make your bullying, asinine point. GO TO ANOTHER BAKERY.

    These “activists” seek out these bakeries as a way to make some political point. I (rightly) cannot go to a Muslim or kosher bakery and force them to bake me a cake with a disturbing picture of their respective lords eating pork, or some other disgusting attempt to play “gotchya”.

  7. When is the government going to crack down on those with an undeniable pattern of dating and marrying only people of the same race?

  8. The politically congruent (“=”) followed the same activism when People of Black and Brown voted against marriage of couplets in California.

  9. After reading the decision, I hope Miller fired Natalie and Rosemary before their shifts ended. They knew their employer’s rules and actively subverted them based on their perceived moral superiority.

  10. “In my view, it is all about free speech.”

    Actually, such cases are all about the right to private property — which right has been nearly completely ignored and violated for decades. The right to property means the rights to the possession, use, and disposition of property. “Use” includes choosing who you want (or don’t want) as customers — by whatever standards you choose, proper or improper, moral or immoral. It is not the government’s function to legislate morality. And there is no such thing as the “right” to compel a person to trade with you.

    1. Just curious. .. then you would agree Twitter et el, e.g., has the legitimate authority to banish, say, the POTUS from the town-square market-place of ideas based exclusively on [their] proprietary standards of conduct?

      1. RE:”Just curious. ..” The issue, which is long overdue for serious debate, is that ‘Twitter’ discriminates on the basis of socio-economic, and political thought and expression which should be declared unlawful under the Civil Rights Act. Said discrimination is the well-spring from which the Cancel Culture Gestapo draws its poisoned water.. The question now being, are Twitter and platforms of its ilk, exempt from being subject to said promulgated laws.

      2. “Just curious. .. then you would agree Twitter et el . . .”

        Yes, assuming that there is no government collusion.

        It’s the *principle* of private property, which applies to all private individuals, companies, and industries. That a property owner has the *political* right to exclude (on whatever grounds) does not mean, however, does not mean that it is the *morally* right or logical thing to do. Twitter and Facebook are good examples of that. If you don’t like their policies (as I don’t), then vote with your feet.

        As a related note, some conservatives are making a very dangerous mistake, which amounts to: I don’t like this or that corporate policy. It’s destructive. Therefore, government ought to do something about it. (Such as: Use antitrust to break up the companies. Or declare them “common carriers,” and impose government regulations.)

        1. “It’s the *principle* of private property, which applies to all private individuals, “

          Sam: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Your statement means you disagree with the Ollies Barbecue decision and others. I am not sure of the exact name, but there were no restaurants permitting black people to eat when traveling. Ollies Barbecue limited the private rights of the owner. Can all the gas station owners refuse to sell blacks gas? Can a private hospital refuse to treat blacks?

          1. Can restaurants or gas stations refuse to serve blacks (or any other group) – yes.
            Precluding them from doing so violates the contracts clause in the constitution.

            Should they do so ? No.
            How frequent is private racial discrimination without government behind it ?
            Obviously so infrequent that in the South they had to pass laws to FORCE businesses to discriminate.

            Freedom includes the freedom to do things we do not like, or it is not freedom.

            1. What people should do doesn’t mean they will do it.

              I go back to Hayek in the Road to Serfdom.

              First there is a significant need.
              Then there is a solution that least interferes in the marketplace.

              The second item was not met.

              There was a lot of pressure and some law that prevented good people from alleviating such problems. That would have been a better place to start.

          2. “Can all the gas station owners . . .”

            Is the gas station, restaurant, hospital, et al, private property? If yes, then the principle applies.

            The inviolate right to the *use* of one’s property is the same as the right to the use of free speech. I might not like your opinions (speech) or who you exclude from your home or business (property), but will defend vigorously your right to do so.

            1. Sam, though I have a position, I am not taking it in this discussion as I wish to hear from you how you would manage the problem of black people being prevented from traveling out of the state.

              I strongly support private property rights.

        2. The only thing Government ought to do is eliminate S230 protection.
          It never should have created in the first place.

          In fact the whole DMCA can get booted and the world will be better.

          Everything else will solve itself in time.

      3. Depends on whether Twitter wants to be considered s common carrier or an organ of the press… Mr./Ms./Xs. “Just Curious.”

      4. Censorship is problematic when you operate a communication platform that offers the pretense of supporting free speech.
        When you modify your platform and become the arbiter of which speech you prefer to be free and which speech you don’t like and you censor. You no longer have free speech. We’ll see. Apparently Elon Musk the new owner of Twitter intends to make it a free speech platform. He indicated that he might let about 75% of the current employees go. That would be a good start. Perhaps the other 25% could be removed by normal, or self imposed attrition? When cleaning out an infestation probably not a good idea to leave breeding pairs behind.

  11. The State has no interest here. Unlike global Tech companys with market caps in the hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars, the barriers/ease of entry into the wedding cake business is quite reasonable.

    *I am religious and quite willing to bake wedding cakes for lesbian couples. Call for pricing.

    1. RE:”*I am religious and quite willing to bake wedding cakes for lesbian couples. Call for pricing.” The offer of choice is logical and reasonable. Where are the entrepreneurs from that community? Haven’t see any clamoring for clients since the issue came to the fore years ago.

  12. Maybe now would be the time to consider having plaintiffs pay court costs and all attorney’s fees when they lose. The defendant already has to pay if they lose plus all the lost time and earnings. There should be more risk assumed by the plaintiff. Justice can be expensive but very necessary in our society. More thought and discretion might become manifest before suits like these are filed. Those costs might also push people towards negotiation. Courts are crowded and this delays justice.
    Especially in a case like this when the plaintiffs could simply have gone elsewhere maybe to a Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or other religious bakery or, god forbid, a secular bakery. I wonder if this was the only Christian bakery in Bakersfield? Maybe these plaintiffs could hire out as bakery diviners. You could set them down in any municipality, give them a wooden rod and they can immediately find the Christian bakery, either for their product or as a potential defendant.

    1. Most of us felt that the choice of choosing this particular bakery was for the sole purpose of pushing this issue into the public arena, to score points for the radical prog/left and to “put those religious people” in their place when it comes to a dual system of fairness – that is – my new prog/left concepts must always trump your beliefs – just because. And I can’t help thinking that this superior attitude has not been fostered, inculcated and cheered on by the education/media industr in their desire to “fundamentally transform” this nation..

  13. Why would one go to a place that they really don’t want to buy from to begin with? Is it enjoyment to irritate oneself by irritating an opposing person? They should go to the person who has or will make what they want. Then, advertise for them. Tell people how satisfied they were with their service, their quality, ……. They would probably be happier with the outcome–But that is not really what they really want, is it? There is no reason to tie up courts with this type of stuff–there are a lot of other reasons.

  14. The sad thing is how vindictive the American Left and Democrats are. They will do anything to ruin someone they disagree with including lie, cheat, steal, defame, smear. Anti-fa, Biden’s FBI and deep state friends in collusion with the Press are anathema to any of the American values that made this country great. We are going to have to start playing their game.

  15. These Social Justice Warriors/Crowd does not give up. They did it in Colorado and when they lose the come back again and again, chasing after the Baker in Colorado and now California. They will continue to file suits even if they lose. They must be DEFEATED

  16. And what was Rodriguez-Del Rio‘s motivation? Why don’t they just go to another baker? Yes, we can easily guess the answer to both questions

    1. RE:”And what was Rodriguez-Del Rio‘s motivation?.” Their community’s insistence that their right of sexual preference and orientation be accepted without question whilst denying the right of refusal based upon ethical and moral convictions protected by law. Their hypocrisy is rank and consistent in so many areas of endeavor. They speak to ‘live and let live’ only when their ox is being gored. That is why they fail to gain support by many.

      1. I agree, ZZ’s. If the plaintiff has to go on safari to find “discrimination,” it’s not discrimination. It might be different if the bakery just hated lesbians, and it would be different if it involved the pervasive discrimination of a minority like that against blacks in the 50’s.

        I would not take Ben and Jerry’s to court for refusing me a delicious MAGA flavor. They can do what they like as long as I have good alternatives–even though they do hate conservatives.

        1. FYI, Ben and Jerry might hate conservatives but it would not matter much to the company’s ice cream flavors. That chain is owned by the largest food manufacturer/distributor in the world and will make anything it thinks will sell

Leave a Reply