A California Judge Allows a Baker to Discriminate Against a Lesbian Couple Who Wanted a Wedding Cake

On Monday, a trial court in California’s Central Valley blamed a lesbian couple for the discrimination they experienced when they tried to buy a wedding cake. That twisted reasoning ignores the very real harms that occur when people are denied the freedom to participate in public life.

Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio tried to buy a cake from the bakery Tastries, but the owner Cathy Miller turned them away when they arrived for their scheduled cake tasting on Aug. 26, 2017, based on her religious objections to same-sex marriage. Miller instead referred them to a different bakery, even though Tastries regularly sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples.

The court found that the Constitution creates a right to discriminate, in part by grossly minimizing the harm that the couple experienced when they were rejected. In ruling for the bakery, Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe said:

If anything, the harm to [the bakery owner] is the greater harm, because it carries significant economic consequences. When one feels injured, insulted or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self-inflicted.

Blaming Eileen and Mireya for the discrimination they experienced that day at the bakery is outrageous. It’s hard to fault people who experience injury when told they are not good enough to be served because of who they are. But the court didn’t stop there.

According to the judge, “the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection.” Judge Lampe went on to say that an "interest in preventing dignitary harms . . . is not a compelling basis for infringing free speech.”  That is just not true. Putting aside the bakery’s contention that freedom of speech creates a right to refuse equal service, the Supreme Court has long recognized that preventing harm to personal dignity that occurs with discrimination is one of the core purposes of our anti-discrimination laws.

In a challenge to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal public accommodations law to ensure human dignity. Justice Arthur Goldberg, in a concurring opinion, wrote: “Discrimination is not simply dollars and cents, hamburgers and movies; it is the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public.”

And in Roberts v. Jaycees, the Supreme Court recognized that discrimination — in that case, turning women away from membership in an organization — “deprives persons of their individual dignity and denies society the benefits of wide participation in political, economic, and cultural life.”

All of us should have the freedom to walk into a business open to the public and know that we will be served. Fearing that you will be turned away because of who you are changes the way you live your life, in real and damaging ways. It forces you to hide who you are. It takes away one's liberty to live an authentic life.

If upheld on appeal, the recent ruling would create a constitutional right to discriminate. It would mean that LGBTQ people, even those who live in states like California with laws against discrimination, must go back to being fearful of embarrassment and hostility when walking into a business. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering this same question in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case right now. Let's hope the justices will see the bakery’s arguments for what they really are — an impermissible attempt to use a claim of speech and religion rights to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and potentially others, across the country.

View comments (119)
Read the Terms of Use


The rights of a business are not more important than the rights of private individuals. I'd like to know if the shop owner refuses to sell cakes to those who are divorced, had pre-marital sex, etc... Are we all going to have to fill out an extensive questionnaire when buying something to make sure we don't offend the business?

Johnny White

When a business is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC that business CANNOT discriminate in this manner, tuf guy.


No. You don’t get to debase human beings because you don’t feel like exercising self-control over your mouth. You agreed to the conditions to be open to the public when you bought a business license. Don’t “feel like it?” Don’t be in business.


Women would not have voting rights today if not for the ACLU. In the early 1900's, women demanding voting rights were essentially viewed as radicals or terrorists by the U.S. government. Many women were beaten up and bloodied for wanting to vote.

Not even the majority of American voters (all men) in the early 1900's supported giving women the right to vote. In other words many constitutional rights are obtained through the court system - not the voting booth. Is this the Utopia you are describing? Maybe discuss this with your wife!


Anyone that has ever planned a formal wedding knows it takes 6-12 months advance planning to reserve all of the wedding vendors and services. In real practice, if a cake shop backs out of the deal a week before the wedding or on the actual wedding day - it's extremely difficult to get equal service for equal cost. In essence LGBT couples pay a form of "poll tax" to get a nice cake on their wedding day and aren't receiving the same level of treatment as any other couple. These issues are very complex, not just a simple solution in many cases.


Maybe in towns where there are no non-bigot options in cake shops, Amazon should come in and put the bigots out of business! Brick & Mortar stores can't afford to turn away any customers to online retailers these days, they would be lucky to get all of the LGBT business they can.


Most do a fine job, but there are other services like auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. that have also been accused of offering sub-standard work to customers simply based on their skin color, creed or sexual orientation. Many times these "2nd Class Citizen Taxes" aren't very overt and can't be proven but can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime - that wouldn't be charged to other customers. Most are good businesses but there are bad apples also that is very costly to minorities. These aren't the ambulance owners but are a vital part of every American's opportunity for success. Weddings are very important, it's one of the most important events in a person's life so it's not just about a cake.

Original Poster

"Public accommodations should be open to the public"
There is no such thing as "public accommodations" if at the same time there exists such a concept as ownership.

What you're suggesting is to take away the right to do what you want with the things you own.
If I own a shop than I can sell whatever it is that I want to sell and sell it to whomever I choose.

Ownership means that I own an object and that I can either choose to share that object with someone or not.

What most of you are actually suggesting is that we take away the rights that come with ownership and instead make everything publicly owned.
Meaning that there is no owner. Which in our society actually means that the "public" owns everything which would be enforced by the state.

Does that sound familiar? Because I can point you towards a few countries who have had some very nice experiences with that line of thought.
For instance, Russia, North Korea and Vietnam.

If you take this thought of "no ownership" to its extreme you don't get to a point where the public owns things. Ownership simply would not exist.
So how could a group own things if the very concept of ownership does not exist?

The entire rhetoric here is not well thought through and comes from a place of supposed moral superiority.
Which in turn leads to authoritarian behaviour because you think you have the right to tell others what they can and can't do.
Only by virtue of protecting a minority group.

Not that I'm not saying that the baker shouldn't sell a cake to someone based on whatever properties that person possesses.
Nor am I saying that they should.

Why? Because I have no interest in coercing someone to bend to my will.
Nor do I have any interest in coercing someone I love to love me in return.

Coercion by definition will always leave you empty-handed because you didn't gain what you wanted through love and acceptance.
Which is what most of you claim to want. A world where people accept each other.

Ironically enough enforcing acceptance is the very opposite of acceptance.


That may be all well and good when and where you have lots of options. In places that don't, one could very quickly run into a situation where nothing is available for whatever reason. For instance a small town with no public transportation that is outside of easy bike or walking range of other towns. The grocer won't do business with you for reason X, so you drive to the nearest store 30 minutes away for groceries. You'd better get gas there too, because the only gas station in your town won't serve you because of reason Y, just like the local car repair shop. "Well, just move, then!" Sure, if you can find an affordable place that will rent/sell to your kind near your job.

See the point?


All arguments about the judge being right and nobody is forcing anyone to buy cake from this lady go out the window with this comment from the judge:

"If anything, the harm to [the bakery owner] is the greater harm, because it carries significant economic consequences."

Do you not realize that that could be the first step down a slippery slope that criminalizes boycotts?


Stay Informed