The Political Hat

     One of the most prominent vectors for forcing people against their will to comply with the woke norms of same-sex marriage has been via wedding cakes, where bakers have been forced to use their “personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony” lest they face ruination at the hands of post-culture wars shooting-the-wounded-in-the-groin Left.

     There are rare cases where free speech has won out, but such victories have only been tangential… until now, of all places, in California:

“A California bakery owner can continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it violates her Christian beliefs, a judge ruled.

“The decision came after a lawyer for Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield argued that owner Cathy Miller’s right to free speech and free expression of religion trumps the argument that she violated a state anti-discrimination law.

“Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe agreed but said Monday his ruling was tied closely to the fact that Miller was being asked to make a cake for an event and that the act of creating it was protected artistic expression.

“Lampe cautioned that freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act in other circumstances”.

     The judge actually is capable of grokking the difference between who one serves and what one serves:

“The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is a laudable and necessary public goal. No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds. A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire.

“No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

Continue reading →