A California appeals court ruled that Tastries bakery owner Cathy Miller violated state law when she refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding. The decision upholds California's anti-discrimination laws and guarantees equal access to goods and services for all.
A California appeals court ruled that Tastries bakery owner Cathy Miller violated state law when she refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding. The decision upholds the principle of equal access to goods and services for all Californians, according to the California Civil Rights Department. The couple, Rodriguez-Del Rios, had initially selected a plain, white, three-tiered cake from Tastries' selection for their wedding.
However, upon learning it would be used for a same-sex wedding, Miller refused the sale, citing her religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. Miller had previously argued her bakery policy, which also prohibits cakes depicting marijuana use or sexual imagery, was based on her religious convictions and not anti-LGBTQ sentiment. A Kern County judge initially sided with Miller, stating that her policy did not violate the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act as it applied to all customers and she referred the couple to another bakery. However, the state appealed the decision, and a three-judge panel of the 5th Appellate District reversed the ruling, emphasizing that Miller's policy was discriminatory as it could only apply to customers based on their sexual orientation. The judges also concluded that reproducing a plain cake, without writing or decorations, that Miller would have sold to anyone else, does not constitute forcing her to express support for a same-sex wedding.Miller, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, plans to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Legal experts anticipate further appeals by conservative groups seeking to extend the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Colorado web designer case and establish exceptions to anti-discrimination laws, allowing businesses to refuse services to gay Americans. However, the California ruling clarifies the distinction between designing a wedding website and making a standard cake, emphasizing that generic products lack the protected First Amendment claims
CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT BAKERY CAKE LESBIAN COUPLE DISCRIMINATION RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FREE SPEECH ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Appeals Court Rules Against DACA, Setting Up Potential Supreme Court ShowdownA federal appeals court dealt a blow to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling against an Obama-era policy that shielded young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children. The decision, which bars the federal government from accepting new DACA applications, could lead to another Supreme Court battle over the program's future.
Read more »
Tennessee Can Enforce Porn Age Verification Law, Appeals Court RulesA panel of appeals judges has ruled that Tennessee can begin enforcing a law requiring pornographic websites to verify the age of their visitors. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel's 3-0 decision allows the law to take effect while a legal challenge continues. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, filed the lawsuit arguing the law would be ineffective and violate free speech protections. The ruling comes as other appeals courts have upheld similar laws in Texas and Indiana.
Read more »
Federal Appeals Court Rules DACA Unlawful, Raising Concerns for 'Dreamers'A federal appeals court has declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration policy unlawful, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the future of hundreds of thousands of 'Dreamers' brought to the U.S. as children. The ruling, while partially stayed, could ultimately lead to the Supreme Court deciding the fate of this long-debated program. The Biden administration's efforts to codify DACA were deemed to violate U.S. immigration law, with the court focusing its impact on Texas, the state leading the legal challenge against DACA. The ruling's implications for current DACA beneficiaries remain unclear, pending further court decisions.
Read more »
Appeals court rules DACA, Obama-era immigration policy, is unlawfulTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who led the challenge on behalf of Republican-led states, called the ruling 'a major victory'
Read more »
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against DACAA federal appeals court has ruled against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era policy that shielded immigrants who arrived in the US illegally as children. The decision, which marks the latest setback for DACA, prohibits the federal government from accepting new applications while current beneficiaries can renew their permits. While the ruling does not immediately change the status of DACA recipients, it raises concerns about the program's future and its vulnerability to further legal challenges.
Read more »
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against DACAA federal appeals court has ruled against DACA, an Obama-era policy that protects immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The decision, while not immediately changing the status of current beneficiaries, blocks new applications and raises concerns about the program's future. The ruling could lead to a third Supreme Court case on DACA.
Read more »