Tastries owner to ask U.S. Supreme Court to hear case after state court declines to hear appeal
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, is seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear her case after the California Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal in the yearslong saga, which has as its focus whether she discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to bake them a wedding cake.
'Cathy has always been clear that she was only trying to follow her faith and her conscience in standing up for what she believes in — and did so in a respectful, polite, and loving way,' Charles LiMandri, partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP and Thomas More Society special counsel, said in a news release.
'While it is disappointing the California Supreme Court has refused to correct the injustice Cathy has endured, we hope the U.S. Supreme Court will chart a different path and restore Cathy's religious liberty,' he said.
In 2017, Miller refused to bake a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez Del-Rio after learning their sexual orientation.
They sued her.
'Still being considered': DHS says reports of Bakersfield girl being deported are false
State attorneys argued at trial Miller discriminated against the couple, while Miller's attorneys said she's a devout Christian who believes baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple would violate her religious beliefs.
They also argued the creation of a wedding cake is a form of artistic expression — and Miller can't be compelled to create a work of art against her will.
Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled in Miller's favor, finding her 'pure and expressive speech is entitled to protection under the First Amendment' and the baking of a Tastries wedding cake is 'labor-intensive' and 'artistic.'
The state appealed, and in December a state appeals court reversed Bradshaw's ruling, finding the bakery's refusal to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple established 'intentional discrimination.'
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied to hear an appeal.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court tackles birthright citizenship case injunctions
The U.S. Supreme Court spent more than two hours Thursday hearing arguments on President Donald Trump's attempt to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants without ever discussing whether the U.S. Constitution grants birthright citizenship, as the court decided in 1898. Instead, the justices debated whether individual judges could block Trump's order nationwide, as three judges have already done. 'We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,' said Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's most outspoken opponent of allowing lower-court judges who decide that a policy is unconstitutional to block it nationwide. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court's conservative majority, observed that U.S. District Court orders halting presidential policies can remain in place for a year or more before reaching the Supreme Court. 'Presidents want to get things done,' he said. The justices appeared to be divided on the issue, with several conservatives expressing concerns about wide-ranging injunctions issued by federal judges while members of the court's liberal minority said such orders may be necessary to protect vulnerable populations such as immigrant families. A few justices kept their opinions to themselves. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the Trump administration's lawyer, urged the court to narrow or lift the lower-court orders but put off any arguments on the legality of birthright citizenship. 'The merits argument we are presenting to lower courts,' Sauer said, is that 'the original meaning of the (Constitution's) citizenship clause extended citizenship to descendants of former slaves, not to children of those who were unlawfully in the United States.' That is not what the court said in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who had emigrated from China. The court upheld his U.S. citizenship based on the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War and grants citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' 'The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens,' the justices said in a 6-2 ruling. The only stated exceptions are the children born to foreign diplomats or to soldiers of invading armies. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the ruling in 1982 and 1985, in decisions that approved citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. 'The president cannot rewrite the Constitution and contradict the Supreme Court's own holdings with the stroke of a pen,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and colleagues from 18 other states that challenged Trump's action, said in a statement after the hearing. Trump issued an executive order after taking office in January declaring an end to birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and to parents temporarily visiting the United States. Federal judges in Washington state, Maryland and Massachusetts have ordered a nationwide halt to his order in lawsuits by Democratic-controlled states and the city of San Francisco and by immigrant-rights advocates. The issue in Thursday's hearing, and in other cases pending before the Supreme Court, is the scope of U.S. District Court judges' authority to block executive orders they consider unconstitutional. Allowing individual judges to issue nationwide injunctions 'encourages rampant court-shopping,' said Sauer, urging the court to allow only individuals who filed the suits to benefit from the rulings while they are being appealed. He also disputed the lower-court decisions that the states could show they were harmed by Trump's order and therefore had the right to challenge it on behalf of their residents. That was disputed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court's three liberal members. 'When the (judge) says, 'Follow the law,' everybody in the world who is hurt by your not following the law benefits,' regardless of whether they filed the original lawsuit, she told Sauer. 'We are just doing what courts do, just telling institutions they have to stop doing something unlawful.' The states' lawyer, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, said, 'Our country has never allowed citizenship to vary based on the state in which one resides.' Unless the injunctions were applied nationally while the case was pending, he said, children and their families would rapidly migrate to states that recognized their citizenship, driving up costs and causing instability. But that only means that 'the practical problem would not be solved' by granting states legal standing to sue, said Justice Samuel Alito, another member of the court's conservative majority. And Kavanaugh said immigrant families could file class action lawsuits on behalf of those affected by the policy, rather than relying on nationwide injunctions. The cases are Trump v. Casa Inc., 24A884; Trump v. Washington, 24A885; and Trump v. New Jersey, 24A886. A ruling is due by the end of June.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: California's net-metering change is killing rooftop solar. That's why we sued to save it
Rooftop solar is a clean and cheap source of energy that could power our communities without the excessive transmission infrastructure that ignited some of the state's biggest wildfires. With our ample sunlight, it only makes sense that California would lean into solar energy. Thus, I was outraged by the California Public Utilities Commission's 2022 decision to gut net energy metering, the very policy that enables rooftop solar to pay for itself. In so doing, the commission hamstrung solar energy production and cost the industry 17,000 jobs, according to the California Solar & Storage Association. That's why my organization teamed up with others to challenge the decision in a case now before the California Supreme Court. There will be a hearing on Wednesday in Los Angeles, and I urge Californians to tune in and to support local solar. Rooftop solar can power resilience hubs that our communities can use in the event of power shut-offs. It also allows a pathway for communities of color, often burdened with the pollution from dirty energy, to share in the wealth and savings of the clean energy future. California should make it easier, not harder, for us to use the solar energy that beams down over us. The reason projects often come under CEQA attack is that local planners and approving authorities try to cut corners. The city of Napa declared the proposed day care center in question to be 'categorically exempt' from any CEQA review when the operator's own data showed an increase of 1,000 auto trips per day impacting an already dangerously congested intersection. Concerned citizens called the city's procedural errors to the attention of officials when they still could have been remedied. Had the city taken a few more steps in the CEQA process, its project approval would have been bulletproof. Instead, it chose to ignore the rules and gave opponents grounds for a bona fide legal challenge. Public officials should not blame the law or villainize concerned citizens when agency corner-cutting causes delays and expense to worthy projects. Bill bad on guns The House-passed 'Big Beautiful Bill' contains a provision that will eliminate the registration and ownership requirements for gun silencers that have been in place since 1934. These devices reduce the sound of gunfire and make semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s even more dangerous. Al Comolli, Millbrae
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
America will no longer tolerate Ireland's war on free speech
This week, Marco Rubio delivered a pointed warning to the world: the First Amendment is going global. The US secretary of state announced visa restrictions targeting 'foreign officials and persons' complicit in censoring Americans. 'Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere,' he said, 'the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over.' Diplomatically, it falls just shy of sanctions. No names were named: everyone implicated in speech policing, from ministers to overzealous constables, must now wonder whether their family holiday to Disney World has just been indefinitely postponed. Nowhere is the unease more acute than in Dublin. Ireland has long enjoyed its status as the EU's Anglophone entrepôt, a low-tax haven with excellent manners. But with most major social media platforms headquartered there, Dublin's regulators have inherited the unenviable task of enforcing Brussels' online speech codes. Caught between Brussels and Washington, and economically tethered to both, Ireland finds itself in a tight spot. It can no longer please everyone. And the timing could hardly be worse. In February, Brussels enacted the Digital Services Act (DSA), the most ambitious speech regulations in its history. It requires platforms to remove 'illegal content,' including those now-ubiquitous modern offences: 'disinformation' and 'hate speech'. Both are defined, helpfully, by national authorities with varying sensibilities. Brussels has made clear it prefers those definitions to be broad, and enforcement to be swift. The European Commission has now given Dublin two months to resuscitate a shelved hate speech bill or face the European Court of Justice. The law, paused after public backlash, rests on the elastic premise that hate is whatever the state says it is. That may comfort the authorities, but it leaves tech platforms navigating a legal hall of mirrors. The result? American companies face a binary choice: enforce vague foreign speech codes, or risk fines of up to 6 per cent of global turnover per breach. Most will opt for the safer route: when in doubt, delete. The knock-on effects have not gone unnoticed across the Atlantic, and Washington is not amused. As it steps back from its old role as global policeman, it finds its companies quietly conscripted as global censors. The regime, for good measure, threatens to tax not just American profits, but the principles underpinning them. And thanks to a quirk of geography and corporate clustering, Ireland has become the bailiff. That role has already earned Dublin what diplomats might politely call a 'frank exchange of views'. This week, Trump dispatched a team to the Irish capital, where they met with free speech advocates and, I'm told, delivered a few sharp words to the Irish government and media commissioner. Rubio's initiative reflects a growing mood in Washington that American free speech norms are under threat abroad, and that the full force of US diplomacy may be needed to defend them. Europe, for its part, is still pretending there's no clash at all. In Brussels, social media is seen less as a marketplace of ideas than as a digital latrine – the source of Trump, Brexit, and other electoral embarrassments. The sluices, in their view, must be shut. Washington sees it rather differently. In one illustrative moment last year, Thierry Breton, then the EU's Internal Market Commissioner, publicly warned Elon Musk about 'amplifying harmful content' shortly before Musk interviewed Donald Trump. The optics were not ideal: a European official rebuking an American billionaire for speaking to a former American president, in the lead-up to an American election. No such warnings, needless to say, were issued to Democrats. To Trump's allies, the asymmetry is obvious, and the State Department appears to agree. Though 'billed to protect children from harmful online content,' Europe's laws are, in its words, 'used to silence dissident voices through Orwellian content moderation.' Orwellian is a word best used sparingly, but the DSA may be one of the rare exceptions. There is still no settled definition of disinformation or hate speech. European governments, many of them nervous about rising populism, are now positioned to define and punish speech just as their electorates become more volatile. That conflict of interest alone ought to raise eyebrows. Hints of what's to come are already visible. One of the DSA's guiding lights is the Global Disinformation Index. Its co-founder, Clare Melford, once explained that disinformation isn't always about accuracy: 'Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful.' This represents a small but meaningful innovation in liberal jurisprudence: the idea that truth is no defence. In a talk at the LSE, Ms Melford offered a 'more useful' standard: 'It's not saying something is or is not disinformation, but it is saying that content on this site or this particular article is content that is anti-immigrant, content that is anti-women, content that is antisemitic.' Put simply, disinformation is not what is false, but what the right people find distasteful. Whether Rubio's visa threats lead to tangible consequences remains to be seen. But the symbolism is already doing its work. If Europe's speech enforcers must now consider the possibility of being flagged or blacklisted from the US, then the First Amendment's long reach may be starting to make itself felt. If not yet in Brussels, then certainly in Dublin. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
