by Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to California’s civil rights law brought by a Bakersfield bakery, leaving intact a state appellate court decision that reinforced protections for same-sex couples seeking equal service at businesses open to the public.
The court’s order denied a petition for certiorari in Catharine Miller and Cathy’s Creations, Inc. v. California Civil Rights Department, ending a multiyear legal dispute over whether a bakery may refuse to sell a predesigned, generic wedding cake to a same-sex couple based on the owner’s religious objections to same-sex marriage. The decision leaves standing a ruling by the California Court of Appeal that found such a refusal violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The California Civil Rights Department said the denial preserves a ruling with statewide implications for access to goods and services. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s order leaves in place a key appellate court decision that affirms the civil rights of people all across California,” said Kevin Kish, director of the Civil Rights Department, in a statement released Monday. “You cannot deny someone service by claiming a predesigned, multipurpose cake is protected speech. Every Californian is entitled to full and equal services at businesses in our state.”
Kish also praised the couple at the center of the case, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, residents of Bakersfield who sought to purchase a cake for their wedding celebration. “I applaud Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio for speaking out and standing up for their rights,” Kish said. “No matter your religion, sexual orientation, or other aspects of who you are, we’re committed to protecting all our communities from discrimination.”
The dispute began in 2017, when the Rodriguez-Del Rios approached Tastries, a bakery owned and operated by Catharine Miller, to order a cake for a post-wedding reception. According to court records, the couple selected a simple, three-tier white cake that was predesigned, had no writing or symbols, and was sold by the bakery for a wide range of events, including birthdays, baby showers and weddings. After initially assisting the couple, Miller later declined to provide the cake when she learned it would be used to celebrate a same-sex wedding.
The couple filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Department, which enforces California’s antidiscrimination laws. Following an investigation, the department sued the bakery and its owner in 2018, alleging the refusal violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The law requires business establishments to provide full and equal access to goods and services without discrimination based on protected characteristics, including sexual orientation.
A trial court ruled in favor of the bakery in late 2022, concluding the refusal did not constitute unlawful discrimination and that requiring the bakery to provide the cake would violate the owner’s free speech rights. The state appealed, and earlier this year the California Court of Appeal reversed that decision.
In its ruling, the appellate court held that refusing to sell a generic, multi-purpose cake for a same-sex wedding amounted to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court also rejected the bakery’s First Amendment defenses, concluding that the cake at issue did not constitute protected speech or expressive conduct because it was a standard product, routinely sold for many occasions, and lacked any expressive elements such as writing, images or customization.
The appellate court distinguished the case from 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a web designer who challenged a Colorado public accommodations law. In that case, the court emphasized the expressive and customized nature of the services at issue. By contrast, the California court found the cake in the Bakersfield case was “a generic, multi-purpose” product whose sale did not convey a message or compel speech.
The California Supreme Court declined review of the appellate decision in May. With Monday’s action, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to intervene, making the lower court’s ruling final.
Legal experts said the denial does not create new precedent but solidifies the application of existing California law, reinforcing that businesses offering standard goods and services may not refuse customers based on protected characteristics. The ruling leaves intact what state officials described as robust civil rights protections ensuring equal access to public accommodations across California.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
