CALIFORNIA: Court Rules For Anti-Gay Baker

The Bakersfield Californian reports:

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe has ruled that owner Cathy Miller can continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same sex couples.

“The State cannot succeed on the facts presented as a matter of law. The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace,” Lampe wrote in his ruling. “The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence.”

Lampe wrote that his ruling was tied closely to the fact that Miller was being asked to create a cake for an event. And he cautioned that religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Act in other circumstances.

“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,” Lampe wrote.

When the case first made the news last year, Miller said this to a local outlet: “Our business is God’s business, we work for him. I shouldn’t be picked on because of my beliefs.”

No word yet as to an appeal. Meanwhile we continue to await the Supreme Court’s decision in the Masterpiece case.

  • Bambino
  • The Milkman

    Fine. Then we should picket her establishment every day until it closes.

  • Macbill

    What if my God hates mixed marriages? Can I refuse to bake a cake?

    • Bambino

      No chocolate just vanilla.

      • BlueberriesForMe

        Devil’s (Satan’s) Food (trident for poking included).

    • Gil

      I’m sure there’s some passage in the bible that can be construed to disapprove of ” mixed marriages “…

      • clay

        I could post their arguments, but I really don’t want to. Has to do with finding Adam a help-mate, not just a mate; the sons of Noah; and the use of colors in symbolism.

    • Uncle Mark

      Good question. I’ve known a number of gay men married to straight women. I’m sure your god would not approve. 😉

  • mykelb

    I’m through with America and Americans. Through.

    • David L. Caster

      This is just the first step. A higher California court is almost certain to overturn this ruling.

    • BlueberriesForMe

      You may have to move to another planet to make that happen. Even then we’re still going to appear in whatever screen you may be watching there.

  • Elagabalus

    Jesus would be so proud. “Go forth and spread hate in my name.”

    • Bambino

      Jesus never tasted cake even after rebirth.

  • Boreal
    • WTHella

      Just serve the public or dont open a public business.

  • Tempus Fuggit

    And to think that it happened in Bakersfield.

  • MonochromeMouse

    I hope her business is constantly vandalized until it becomes too expensive to keep the doors open. This is not, and never was, a freedom of speech issue. If you sell a product to one customer you have to sell it to any customer that want’s to buy it and can afford to pay for it regardless of if you want them to have it or not.

    • David L. Caster

      I would prefer that people just go elsewhere for their cakes.

    • B Snow

      No, no vandalism, please. That will just turn her into a martyr. Ignoring her business into bankruptcy would be much better comeuppance.

      • MonochromeMouse

        Ignoring bigotry is exactly what’s turned this country into the shithole it currently is. Bigots won’t suddenly see the error of their ways unless they face real tangible consequences.

        • B Snow

          They *are* seeing tangible consequences — they’re losing money because reasonable people are taking their business elsewhere. They’re no longer proud of being designated hate groups.

          Yes, ignoring bigotry is what’s turned this country into a shithole. We ignored it for the past 30 years or so, and the bigots all came roaring back into the sunlight when one of their own ran for President. I won’t ignore them, but I also won’t give them the victim status they so desperately want to claim.

  • tbj5

    If she’s an artist then she should work on commission with a private membership.

    You don’t get access to the public market while discriminating against part of said market for existing.

    • Bambino

      Narrow minded individuals cannot call themselves artists.

  • Rex

    Come on California, do better.

    • Phaius

      She’s from one of the most red of the red counties of California. 100% unsurprising the judge went the way he did.

  • Jim Maloney

    Judge was appointed by Republican Arnold S.

    • Bambino

      And ran unopposed in 2016.

  • bkmn

    Does anyone have any background on Lampe?

  • Boreal
    • Tomcat

      And I thought it because they caught up to your conjob scam.

    • kaydenpat

      Even though I didn’t say one word about that issue.

    • David Walker

      And this shit keeps showing up in their bible. Found this lyric in a song recently:
      Philippians 4:8-9 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
      8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

      Why is that so hard to understand? And this from the first scamvangelist!

      • wmforr

        …whatever is fabulous!

        • David Walker

          Wonderful. Thank you for that. The choral itself isn’t bad. If for whatever reason I directed it, though, I think I’d crack up thinking about “whatever is fabulous!”

    • Judas Peckerwood

      Huh. I heard it was a desperate bid to get Dad to pay attention to him.

  • boobert

    Appeal ! Tires aren’t sacred, but a cake is ?

    • CanuckDon

      A special, artistically designed tire is. You’d be contributing to the devil-may-care goings-on happening inside that gay couple’s Subaru.

      • boobert

        I have a subaru. It’s a very gay place to be, lol.

        • CanuckDon

          lol…I must be psychic!

    • CJAS

      I’m stuck on that point too. What’s sacred? Who decides? Since they’re free to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, or gender identification over anything related to anything they call sacred.

    • Uncle Mark

      Tires AREN’T sacred?!! You clearly haven’t seen the way my bf treats his car

  • Karl Dubhe

    If you sell a firearm and it’s used in a murder, did you also participate in that crime?

    Yah, didn’t think so.

    • The_Wretched

      That turns out to be a bad example as the gun industry has special protections that include not suing gun vendors for the bad acts of their buyers. The default rule at law is that you can at least get them for gross negligence (see also dram shop laws where the bad acts of drunks can be sued to the bar that served them).

  • TexasBoy

    Kern County…enough said… during the great depression my grandfather, a conservative and life long Republican with a wife and 3 daughters to support, moved with his family to Kern County for work in the oil fields (he and my great Uncle we’re part of the team that drilled the first well on Signal Hill in Long Beach). As conservative as he was (and also he was a minister’s son) he thought Kern County was over the top crazy conservative. He moved back to LA County as soon as he could and never returned to Kern County.

    • clay

      I blame Kern County on Oklahoma.

  • Yalma Cuder-Zicci

    “There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire.”

    I’m sure that case will be made one day, and the Christian Right will rally around the cause.

    • HZ81

      “I refuse to let that limo go to that gay wedding on my Jesus tires!!!”

      Yup, I can see it, too.

    • TexasBoy

      But…but…tires are round like a halo, and they represent all that is holy and sacred.

      • Paul Ohbehr L

        Oh great, homophobic donut salespeople and homophobic inner tube for river floating rental people because of Jeebus. /s Lol.

    • MT YVR

      I’m sure some one will come up with “Holy rollers” at some point.

      😉

      • David Walker

        Church ladies use holy rollers when setting their hair.

  • TheManicMechanic

    She needs to have people come in, waste her time with long details with the prospects of a big sale of huge, detailed cakes, only to find out at the very end as the commitment is to be made that the products are for same sex weddings. Over and over again. Sprinkle folks coming in for celebration cakes for Satanist birthday parties and everything else these idiots stand against.

    Forgot to add that this person should be required to post plainly her “rules” about not making cakes for discriminatory reasons. Every such shop with these “beliefs” should be required by law to advertise this at the entrance, the counter, and in all print materials.

    • John30013

      Or better yet, lie to her about the “event” the cake is for ,and then see how willing she really is to serve a same-sex couple.

      • TexasBoy

        No need to lie, just find a gay couple named Mike and Pat, Josh and Chris or Rick and Carrol, or any other common unisex name. Draw everything up, get ready to sign, and then show her photos.

        • Gil

          Better yet, don’t tell her until you go to pick it up and pay for it….

          • CanuckDon

            hehe….see if the waste of labour, ingredients and a big sale is not as important than her stinking bible.

          • anne marie in philly

            I like this idea! fucking bitch bigot!

          • Anastasia Beaverhousen

            Or better have her deliver it to the reception…

          • witch

            Do send her pictures of the same sex couple by the wedding cake,

      • TheManicMechanic

        This is kind of what I was describing. A cake for, say, “Pat and Sandy” or otherwise ambiguous, or one or both of the people being transgender, etc. Anything that can be shown to be innocuous at first, but at the money shot will be shown to make her pull out her “sincerely held religious beliefs” and lose out. It is to be an exercise in frustration for her over and over again.

    • JWC

      As she has the right to advertise and also feels that she has the right to discriminate then in her advertisements she must warn her patrons of her proclivities She must allow her patrons to draw their own conclusions on her bigotry. Who else does it pertain to. What are her limits. She fought for the right to discriminate then let her live up to it and live with it

      • John Doe

        Yeah you damn blackies better not come to my lunch counter, can you not read the sign that says Whites Only??

    • kelven

      It really is all about them wanting to publicly shame “teh gays” and demonstrate their pious indignity to the world. Requiring signage kills this narrative (as we saw in Arizona) because they suddenly realize they not only do not have the opportunity to upbraid uppity gays, but anyone with a shred of moral fiber would boycott a business that displayed such a backwards attitude.

      • B Snow

        This. Of course, if the business owners won’t put up a sign, it’s up to the public to let potential customers know, via Yelp, who won’t be served. Maybe add a few pre-emptive warnings as well, such as “This shop will not make cakes for same-sex or Jewish weddings.” If that information is incorrect, let the shop owner come forward with a denial.

        • Barry S G

          Actually by strict logic any statement “P1 or P2” is true if either P1 is true or P2 is true. Therefore, saying that this baker will not make cakes for same-sex couples or Jewish weddings is a true statement.

      • PianoGuy

        What happened in Arizona? Guess I was out of the loop….

        • B Snow

          AZ legislature passed a discrimination law. Republican but pro-business governor vetoed it.

          I can’t find it now, but Democrats proposed an addendum or counter bill or something like that, stating that if businesses were allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community and planned to do so, they would be required to display a sign in their window to that effect. It would let LGBT potential customers know they would not be welcome. Seems reasonable, right?

          Of course the Republicans shot it down, because bigots don’t want to advertise their bigotry, and, as kelven said, those business owners want protection under the law to be able to tell those dirty sinful gays exactly why they’re being refused service.

          • PianoGuy

            Thanks!

        • kelven

          My apologies. It was actually Oklahoma and it was Emily Virgin who administered the poison pill that killed the bill.

          http://www.joemygod.com/tag/emily-virgin/

          • B Snow

            Thanks! I searched and searched, even without “Arizona” in the search terms, and STILL couldn’t find it. #googlefufail

          • kelven

            Ha! I did as well. As soon as you asked I realized I should not have made the reference w/o a link so I tried to google it myself. It took me a while since I had remembered the state wrong and couldn’t remember the name of the representative.

          • B Snow

            I couldn’t find it at all though, so kudos. 🙂

    • jm2

      What would she do if a member of the Church of Satan wanted to order a cake for an ‘event’ (Black Mass?) at their church, which BTW was established in California, is recognized in California, and has its world headquarters in California, from her? Also, how would Judge Lampe rule in that case?

      • sfprman

        Exactly. That’s why HRC, GLADD, or some of other organization should simply morph into a gay religion. Then discriminating against gays in any way would be religious discrimination.

        • jm2

          one of the problems is the Unruh Act Lampe (a Repub appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger) cites. It is very specific:
          “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
          It specifically delineates the “persons” and also “services in all business establishments.” So, how can he justify carving out any exception?

          • ChrisMorley

            ‘If the cake had already been made and was on sale, that would have been discriminatory, the judge said.
            But Miller could not be made to bake a cake which would go against her beliefs, he added.
            The judge said that such an order from the state would be “the stuff of tyranny”.
            “For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” he wrote in the eight-page ruling.’

            http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/06/baker-who-said-she-doesnt-support-the-gays-wins-court-ruling-against-lesbian-couple/

            I call bullshit on the judge’s notion that baking a cake for a lesbian couple violates the baker’s free speech.

          • Strepsi

            and bullshit on that it’s “sacred and expressive”. Bake the fucking cake.

          • Marc

            What if they used the cake already made for their wedding? Wouldn’t that be an endorsement of their marriage since she had to “create” said cake – or do cakes bake and decorate themselves? And if she is against gay marriage because Jebus tells them to, why sell to gays at all? The Bible is much more clear on what it thinks about gays. So she can cherry pick any passage out of a 2000 year old book and say it infringes on her freedom of speech?

          • It’s total BS, naturally. And if you give ’em an inch, they’ll take more and more. It’s actually the game plan. But the logic really pisses me off. How is someone *else’s* marriage somehow against HER religion? Why would her customers have to follow HER religion in order to buy her wares? It literally makes no sense.

          • Xuuths

            Incompetency.

        • wmforr

          A woman on Freebananarepublic commented, “Homosexuals can’t be Christians! Homosexuality is their religion!”
          When I commented that it then deserves First Amendment protection, she did not respond.

    • Blackfork

      Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs. “SHRUB” for short. Cathy Miller is a shrub.

      • Kissmagrits

        We called GWB Shrub for his eight incoherent years. Gotta find a
        new one for Derp derp Donny.

    • Mrs. Councillor Nugent

      Do you suppose asking for a Tom of Finland design might give it away?

    • JIM W

      I agree with pretending to be a potential customer. A gay man and a lesbian should go in as a couple and pull out all the stop for ordering an over the top cake. Lead her on as is she is going to get a big order. Perhaps even a second visit. Finally say,, Oh, aren’t you the No Cakes For Gays Bakery…. Sorry we don’t believe in discrimination, so we will take our business elsewhere. Fuck You Very Much! And out the door we go.

    • wmforr

      In California? She’d lose a lot of straight business, too.

      • Grimes

        Bakersfield is the armpit of CA, VERY religious part of the state. She’ll have many supporters in Kern County

        • Steverino

          Although Kern County is located in California, it may as well be a satellite county of Oklahoma.

    • Todd20036

      Crud. You realize this is the foot in the door to justify discrimination against LBGTs.legally
      And THAT is the first step to camps

      • TheManicMechanic

        Which is why these people and businesses need to find financial ruin and public shame wherever possible. The disclaimers are like scarlet letters. They want to discriminate, but don’t want to be called out for it. Keeping the hate under the table and the the discrimination out of the public eye will only allow it to spread. This business in particular needs to be destroyed by the court of public opinion. This is where my idea of wasting their time, cancelling orders and the like needs to happen continuously until the business is no longer viable. She can court the business of her kind, but as a whole, those people are cheap, catty and complain about everything. The worst customers you could ever want.

  • The_Wretched

    “nothing sacred or expressive”

    No. Will print shops be next?

    • clay

      “Terribly sorry about those fliers about the dangers of Satanism, but they were already in stock and we didn’t have time to make your expressive gay wedding brochures.”

  • Blake J Butler

    She’s isn’t going anywhere hateful bitches across the political spectrum that hate her for everything she says and does.

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/960742379018964992

  • shivadog

    So basically you can discriminate, but only against fags. One more step down the road to Nazism.

    • Paula

      Then it’s up to us to learn from history and fight back.

    • clay

      , , , but only after you know/think they’re fags.

      In this day of “just in time” delivery and assembly, this will be used to expand discrimination.

    • McArthurPark

      Then on the same token, business should be able to be refused on the grounds that the customer is ‘Christian’. Let’s see how well that turns out. Unlike religion where everything is left up to interpretation, discrimination should leave no grey areas.

  • Boreal

    OT:
    2500 toxic chemical sites in the path of flooding.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/06/climate/flood-toxic-chemicals.html

  • Ninja0980

    Does this judge and others really think the bigots are going to stop at wedding cakes despite him saying they should?
    You open the door for discrimination in one area, only a matter of time before it applies to all areas.

  • Makoto

    “I shouldn’t be picked on because of my beliefs.”

    Cherry picking is so easy. Would Miller bake a cake for someone who sassed their parents? Has a tattoo? Wears blended cloth? Covets one of those fancy cakes in the window? Has divorced in the past? These are all naughty things according to that same book.

    And at the end of the day, your business does not have religious beliefs. Which really should take care of any/all of these arguments.

    • lymis

      But your customers should get picked on because of theirs? Like, the belief that they’re human beings?

      • Makoto

        Apparently she’s good with that, indeed…

        I’ll never understand folks like her.

    • clay

      Doesn’t work when the simple answer is, “Then stop picking at people.”

  • Aaron Smith

    Fine. That’s just one more cake we don’t have to worry about finding a long, grey, scraggly-ass hair in.

  • Disqusdmnj

    Wait, so if she sells cakes in a shop, she has to sell to everyone… but if someone has her bake for a wedding, that’s like commissioning an artist, and she can refuse?

    Am I understanding the ruling correctly?

    • Frostbite

      Yes

    • The_Wretched

      That’s the RWNJ position on all these wedding related cases. The case is a low level court decision and driven by politics not law.

      • customartist

        and it will be reversed

        • The_Wretched

          I agree. This is regional noise. There’s a good reason that stare decisis doesn’t apply until the case is ruled on at the appeals court.

    • customartist

      It sounds like a combination of speech and relgion

  • Uncle Mark

    Oh for fuck’s sake !! Was this hateful-bitch being asked to put images of women kissing on the cake, rainbow flags, etc? She was NOT asked to do anything more than any straight couple would ask in having a custom-made cake. The fact that the cake should have been “pre-made” is utter ridiculous bullshit. I just had a birthday cake ordered, and was inundated with questions about filling, frosting, piping, and decorations & printing. Does ANYONE buy a wedding cake off the shelf?!!

  • canoebum

    Corporations are people, cakes are speech, discrimination is freedom. Sure. Why not?

    • Paula

      And fire is for cleansing. I’m just sayin’.

    • zhera

      At least tires aren’t sacred. Yet.

      • David Walker

        All in good time, my lovely. All in good time.

      • clay

        . . . but how those tires are mounted . . .

  • Frostbite

    Well I sure hope she puts a large sign in her window that states she openly discriminates.

    • Boreal

      People should put stickers on the windows of her business to advertise her hate if she won’t.

    • Ninja0980

      And miss the chance to badger LGBT people that walk in her shop?

  • Boreal
  • dbishop75

    I think the judge made a good decision considering the circumstances. His ruling is testimony to his willingness to be equal to both sides. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to be in any of these judge’s shoes with regards to these cases.

    • The_Wretched

      bite me you trolling whore.

      • dbishop75

        Excuse me? I’m no troll, asswipe. If you don’t like my opinion – move the fuck on! Ain’t nobody making you read it or reply to it. Just….get bent!

        • The_Wretched

          The judge made a political decision not a legal one. California law (Unruh Act and the rulings on it) is clear that the religious do not have a ‘free speech religious right’ to ignore anti-discrimination law. There isn’t an ‘equal right’ to discriminate and to be discriminated against.

          Religion is not a ‘get out of jail’ card for breaking the law.

          • dbishop75

            Did you read his opinion?

            “…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.”

            He, nor I, ever said religion was a “get out of jail” card. He was trying to be balanced and fair with regards to all parties.

            Again, I will say that I would not want to be one of these judges in an effort to find that balance. I’m too biased to make an unbiased decision in these matters.

          • The_Wretched

            Right troll. Asked and answered, I’m out. I’m not going to let you tar-baby.

          • dbishop75

            LMMFAO!!! Sure, a troll would use their actual photo and name to troll comments sections. Bless your little heart. Ain’t too bright, huh? I’ve been fighting trolls for decades. One think you can trust is no troll EVER shows their true identity. Like….using some weird screen name and a child’s drawing as their avatar. LMMFAO!!!!

          • The_Wretched

            1. true identies turn out to be fake. Arguments from incredjulity are troll sign.
            2. self serving “I have been decades and made only 1k posts” is not convincing and is a troll sign
            3. ad hom on my gravitar is a troll sign
            4. insulting my intelligence rather that the legal points is a troll sign
            5. “bless your heart” is a xtian insult and troll sign.

            If it walks like a duck…

          • dbishop75

            This is interesting. I now how to prove my validity? And to you? HA HA HA HA
            Cunty, I don’t have to prove myself, nor answer to you.

            Go back to the playground, child. Adults are talking.

            BTW – just demonstrating how wrong you are, Bless Your Heart is NOT Christian. It’s Southern. It means you’re fucking stupid!

            But hey, believe what you want. Does not change anything.

          • CJAS

            The judge opened the door to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, or gender identification over anything related to anything sacred. What’s sacred? Who decides?

          • dbishop75

            That’s the $100,000.00 question. But can we ever settle on a answer? That, I honestly do not know.

          • The_Wretched

            Bull. You do know. State legislatures make the decision and they make similar decisions all the time. Some States or localities have anti-discrimination laws. EVERYONE must follow them regardless of their relgions. Other places don’t have such laws and the religious bigots get to discriminate. This is not difficult.

          • dbishop75

            No, we don’t. Water is sacred to many, but not all. The Sun is sacred to some, but not all. The reality is that when it comes to what is or isn’t sacred – we cannot find an agreement. That goes beyond religious ideologies. I believe that is a major thorn in this argument, at the moment. And no, I do not want it to be based on religion. I’m no Christian, so I have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

            I live in Houston where are 0 protections for the LGBTQA. Everyday we do not know what will happen from the next. We put our trust in those that we hope don’t fuck us over, but it’s still a daily risk.

          • CJAS

            But we do, really. Based the history of American law and custom, sacred will be whatever fulfills the need to keep others inferior.

          • dbishop75

            Sadly, you’re likely right.

          • clay

            Actually, the judge opened the door to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, or gender identification over anything related to anything expressive. If the cake’s already baked and decorated, the baker would have been in violation of the law to refuse to sell it. The judge made the ruling unduly confusing (maybe because the judge hadn’t thought it through completely) by bringing “sacred” back up with the tires.

          • Mark_in_MN

            That bit exposes the logical fallacy at the heart of the ruling. It relies on special pleading. Tires or baked goods on the racks of a public display case may not be refused, but a wedding cake is just just different. Special pleading through and through.

    • The Milkman

      I respectfully disagree. This case is not about the baking of cakes, just like the other similar cases are not about wedding venues and such. This case is about where one person’s “religious liberties” end and another person’s civil and human rights begin. The correct answer, and there is only one correct answer, is that one’s religious liberties end at the tip of one’s nose. When the courts support an individual who wishes to defy civil public accommodations laws because of religion-based animus toward an identifiable social group by offering a service to some but not to all, that not only amounts to state-sponsorship of religion, it also brings into question the validity of public accommodations laws in general. It allows for state-sponsored discrimination.

      • dbishop75

        I can totally accept that we disagree. I don’t personally think it was the ideal ruling (for me and my family), but I understand the enormity of the issue. I feel so bad for these judges attempting to walk a like to keep everyone happy….which is not a reality, but we tend to bump our heads into walls before we wake up.

        I’ve no doubt that this will be appealed. The only good portion is that this judge did make note that discrimination for public serves is not acceptable. I’m ok (not really, but….) with a sign out front showing whom they will not serve. At least then, the community knows where not to shop.

        I’m in Texas, so we are light years behind on this sort of issue. I hope that it never comes to my home state, because I know the outcome will spell disaster.

        BTW – thank you for your kind response.

        • clay

          It’s not the judge’s job “to keep everyone happy”. Judges are supposed to NOT be politicians. It’s the judge’s job to correctly interpret and apply the law and constitutions.

        • The Milkman

          I’m from Oklahoma originally, which is just Texas without the charm. Totally understand the culture. But it’s important to note that judges don’t interpret the law to make people happy. They take these cases to clarify what the law means and how it’s to be applied. Rest well-assured that one side of this issue will come away angry.

      • RJ Bone

        “The correct answer, and there is only one correct answer, is that one’s religious liberties end at the tip of one’s nose. ”

        I’ve heard a variation on that and I really like that explanation. Believe what you want, but the second you’re affecting me, you’re done.

        • dbishop75

          Personally, I agree with you 100%.

    • John30013

      I disagree. This judge has now (until he’s overruled) conflated making a cake with “participating in” the wedding. Such “logic” could have far-reaching consequences (for example , that gun makers could be found under the law to be participants in any event–like a crime–in which their fun is used).

      I’d like to hear this judge address two scenarios under this logic:
      1) if a same-sex couple commissioned a wedding-style cake and claimed it was for some other purpose (or “event”), could the baker refuse service?
      2) Could a carpenter refuse to build a gazebo in which a save-sex wedding was going to take place?

      It seems the service provider’s right to refuse service depends on their knowing how their product will be used. Otherwise, their refusal could not be distinguished from “mere” anti-LGBT animus.

      • dbishop75

        You point out some real valid concerns. Thank You for that.

        As I look back on our history – we tend to attempt to find resolution, but fail the first few times. I am hopeful that this is one of those such cases. As you stated, there are too many unknowns and variables at this time. We need more information, I think.

      • stuckinthewoods

        Yes, could those not-sacred tires be refused if they were for a limo carrying the couple? Is the distinction simply that an installer didn’t make the tires? When does an object become “speech”?

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Personally, if this is how they want it, the law should mandate they put signage up clearly stating which clients they will cater to and the reasons for it.

    “We don’t serve blacks because God says they’re slaves”
    “We don’t bake wedding cakes for gays because Jeebus”
    “We don’t make cupcakes for Muslims because they’re terrorists”

    That kind of thing. Sure, it’s wholly contemptible and offensive, but the public should be made aware of what businesses they’re supporting.

    Force them to own it, openly and publicly and let the people decide if their business is worth dealing with. If continues to do well, at least you’d know what kind of town you live in.

    • Boreal

      I like that idea. Specifically which of your religious bigotries are you using to discriminate against others? They should own it.

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        As I noted elsewhere, I would prefer the courts uphold the public accommodations laws, but it’s clear that some courts aren’t going to do so, so in lieu of that, they should be forced to publicly declare their positions so that I and others can decide where to give our money.

    • TheManicMechanic

      I said this in my earlier post. If these people are allowed to discriminate, it needs to be a disclaimer similar to the cancer warnings on cigarette packs. If they advertise in papers, TV, anywhere, the disclaimer must be prominent.

    • JWC

      Agree 110% if this is the game they wish to play and they have set the rules , then by all means play on by THOSE rules Discrimination is discrimination be it against Muslim , blacks,Gays or whatever You discriminate against one you discriminate against all

    • greenmanTN

      Definitely agree. If the courts are going to uphold BS like this, signage should therefore be required to avoid unnecessary embarrassment for both parties, and so potential customers can patronize the business, or not, with informed consent.

    • David Walker

      I have no doubt that would be seen as government-forced religious persecution. It’s one thing to be all godly and everything; it’s something else again when it may affect income.

    • Steverino

      But that would spoil their fun!
      /s

  • Under the same, warped logic, one should be able to refuse to make a cake for a black person or a Jew because of religious beliefs. Time to impeach.

    • CJAS

      The judge will say that’s not true. But it is, as long as the product or service is related to something considered sacred.

    • TheManicMechanic

      That’s going to happen next. One or the other.

    • -M-

      On the plus side though, everyone would also be free to refuse service to Christians unless they sign a solemn oath that they’re not a racist, homophobe, or any other type of bigot. 🤪 Ya gotta love unintended consequences.

    • clay

      “I ain’t putting my hands to a suit for you. Buy one off the rack.”

      “You can get a [soggy, two day old] sandwich from the cooler, to go.”

      “What’s that thing on your door frame? Uh huh. George! just dump the trees, we’re out of here, the Jew can plant them himself. Thanks for doing business with us; I’m sure your check’s good.”

  • The_Wretched

    This is a low level State court judge. It will likely be appealed and the judge got it wrong as a matter of law. 1. Wedding cakes are not ‘purdy shotguns’ nor are they 2. free speech. The core issue is that the SOCAS sets the rights of christians qua christians and that does not include skipping out on general laws of neutral applicability (such as the apt Unruh Act).

    • Reasoning101

      It’s Kern County, after all. Trump country. For a while, Devin Nunes country. If a local judge had ruled any differently, it would have been an earthquake bigger than in 1906.

  • Friday’s_cat

    Anybody off the rails enough to deny custom based on gender preference because their magic book said, is nuts enough to bake ground glass into the cake.

    • The_Wretched

      Which would be a big felony.

      • clay

        But . . . it would be expressive
        /s

  • customartist

    So if it is “Sacred”…

    • Lumpy Gaga

      “If it bends, it’s funny. If it breaks, it’s not funny.”

  • JWC

    ya its Cherry picking again

  • edrex

    not exactly a solomonian decision.

  • customartist

    This will be reversed in the Appeals Court. Precedents have found that ensuring public accommodations Does Not infringe on freedom of speech or religious belief

    • The_Wretched

      And the judge is ruling against the clear language of the Californian State anti-discrimination law (Unruh act).

      • customartist

        Studies have shown that people who do not experience discrimination are in denial that said discrimination even exists

        • another_steve

          Studies have also shown that theofascist judges tend to rule in favor of theofascist plaintiffs and defendants.

          I checked in today with the rotting corpse of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I said to him, “Antonin honey, ask that maggot on your left orbital cavity to move slightly to the right, if you indeed ruled in favor of theofacisists.”

          And the maggot moved.

  • Jalapeño Out Of F**ks To Give

    I predict that thousands of trumpanzees and religious evangelical nutters who previously hoped and prayed that California would slide into the sea will suddenly be planning vacations to Bakersfield.

  • Michael R
    • always a win.

      Fuck you, (C) u n t .

    • joeyj1220

      I could watch this all day

    • Treant

      Needs more Miss Minnie.

    • olandp

      This never gets old, unlike Anita.

    • anne marie in philly

      that h8ing bitch deserved more than a creamy pie! glad she’s dead!

    • narutomania

      There is a whole series of such animated .gifs that I could watch over and over. This one, and the one of Dickhead Spencer getting elbow-slammed in the face … (sigh) yeah, that’s a favourite, too.

    • JDS

      Since this brings back memories, I just got down watching The Life & Times of Harvey Milk on TCM. Powerful documentary.

    • JDS
  • Boreal
  • JustDucky

    Expression: “We don’t serve that kind here.”

    Discrimination: “We don’t serve your kind here.”

  • customartist

    Woolworth’s no longer has to serve African Americans

  • another_steve

    If you’re a theofascist and you get a theofascist judge, you win.

  • Gerry Fisher

    I don’t recall “baking a wedding cake” as being particularly “sacred.”

    It drives me nuts that it’s clearly established in law that denying seating in a particular part of a bus or denying the use of one particular water fountain based on group identity could be important enough for the state to have a compelling interest to ban these practices, and yet it’s supposed to be A-OK for us LGBT folk to wander into any wedding accessory shop and expect to be treated like any other customer, only to be judged and humiliated…potentially repeatedly while trying to procure basic services. Just insane.

    • M Jackson

      They’ve only come up with that one very recently.

  • TexasBoy

    I’m sure the ruling would be struck down by the 9th circuit, and then maybe SCOTUS could refuse to hear an appeal.

    • itsjoe618

      I think a state appeals court will overturn it long before it ever has a chance to reach a federal court.

  • kaydenpat

    Appeal. How is baking a cake speech? It’s providing a service to customers. If you bake wedding cakes for the public, you don’t get to pick and choose which customers you bake for.

    Sigh.

    • SammySeattle

      You also don’t get to claim that such a pedestrian item is somehow imbued with meaning further than that which the purchaser desires.

      • kaydenpat

        I bet she doesn’t have any problems baking cakes for folks like Trump who marry time and time again. Because heterosexual marriages are sacred no matter what.

    • Stev84

      The same was political donations are “speech”. ‘murica. *sigh*

    • -M-

      Making a ‘number six in vanilla with buttercream hold the roses’ is not artistic expression.

  • M Jackson

    It’s been posted below but i’ll say it again — she should absolutely be required to first post a visible notice that she intends to refuse service to _____ and specify who she will turn away from her shop, and the specific reason for that refusal. Since she has such strength in her convictions then she shouldn’t have a problem with that, and if she’s does then good.

  • Michael R
  • Reasoning101

    The issue here is that she is an artist for hire. For public hire. If you sit on the sidewalk and advertise that you’ll draw anyone’s caricatures, then decline to draw a mixed-race couple, you have violated business and anti-discrimination laws. You’ve disrespected a legal couple by using your business license to practice your racism under the guise of some fake religious protection. It’s no different here.

    There is no solid evidence that God does not want her to make certain wedding cakes. It is not universally agreed by Christians that God opposes same-sex unions. This woman wants to pick and choose based on her biases, and the laws on public accommodation be damned. But if you want a business license, you take all clients who are civil and lawful. If you want to discriminate against people, do it in your personal life without the privileges of a California business license.

    • Ben in Oakland

      Artist is HER designation.

      • zhera

        ‘Everyone’s a critic’ —> Everyone’s an artist these days.

        • The_Wretched

          When wedding cakes are housed at the Louvre and Guggenheim and looted by nazis during times of war, the ‘artist’ can get back to me.

    • edrex

      and why can a judge not see that? his stupid, wrongheaded efforts to split the middle ignores the obvious and flat out allows discrimination in the public market place.

  • Lindoro Almaviva

    just force her out of business. Give her so much bad press she has no option but to go to the local walmart if she wants to bake cakes. I am done being nice with these people. They would have no problems baking a cake for a divorced couple and that lies the flimsiness of their arguments, and yet nobody is willing to put them on the stand and force them to testify to how narrowly they seem to follow the teachings of their god.

    • RJ Bone

      ” I am done being nice with these people.”

      Everyone needs to be. They will push and push until they have the freedom to abuse, even more than they ever had before.

      It needs to be stopped.

      • The_Wretched

        Call them on their claim to special privilege claim to ignore the laws of the state.

  • Uncle Mark

    Are her cakes made with holy water? Do priests or rabbis come in to bless her wares? Does she have communion wafers on top? Have any bones from saints been baked inside? NO? Then they’re just fucking cakes and there is NOTHING sacred about them. Sounds like someone is guilty of the sin of pride, as well as refusing to “love one another as I have loved you.” I think that invalidates your license to be “sacred.”

    • Paul Ohbehr L

      Well said, Uncle Mark. Thank you.

  • DisqusD37

    Fuck that judge. If any baker refused him a cake, do you think he’d take no offense and simply move on to the next baker?

  • Leo
  • IAMBOWLINGGREEN
  • Rex

    Judging from the cakes in the photo I doubt any gay couple would want one of her creations.

    • clay

      Yeah, but it’s Bakersfield, so . . .

  • edrex

    doesn’t her religion prevent her from using leavening?

    • CJAS

      It does. But, this isn’t about religion. It’s about the need to have others legally defined as inferior.

  • Yelp reviews.
    Google reviews.
    Facebook reviews.

    And…Go!!

  • SammySeattle

    Any sacred expression conveyed in a wedding cake is on the part of the couple purchasing it. It is not within the realm of the baker’s responsibility or right to imbue any meaning into baked goods offered for purchase.

    • David Walker

      But…but…it’s her art and, of course, god-given talent. How can she possibly be forced to share that with…you know… us.

  • Blake J Butler
    • TexasBoy

      I love shopping at Publix, I wish we had them in Texas.

  • Ben in Oakland

    So a Superior court judge bought her story. In Kern County, the heart of Trump country. Let’s see what the state appeals court does, then the state supremes.
    I would also warn her. Be careful of what you wish for. You may get it.

  • TimJ

    Ok, so we lost in court. Boycott the shit out of these people, publicize their bigotry far and wide. If you live in the neighborhood, stand out front with a sign, call them out.

  • Blueflash

    How can a cake represent speech, that doesn’t say anything with words on it and that only differs from other cakes by virtue of whom it’s sold to?

    • clay

      The courts have had a broad view of “speech” for quite a while.

  • This can and ought to be appealed.

  • DesertSun59

    ‘Our business is Chulthu’s business, we work for him. I shouldn’t be picked on because of my beliefs.’

    There. I fixed it for them. You see, ANYONE can play that game.

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    I belong to the soon-to-be-restored Temple of Neptune. My religion prevents me from tolerating Christianist bakers.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8e203fc98d8cfbf9db74a5213f4e10fdce6f92425f63d5acc7b43bcf57b7143e.jpg

  • OdieDenCO

    nobody was picking on you because of your beliefs. you’re being brought to heel because you are using your beliefs to pick on others.

    • clay

      “They were going to force their homosexual dollars down the throat of my bank account.” /s

  • Harveyrabbit

    I wonder what the judge would have ruled if the case involved not wanting to bake a cake for another reason.. specifically a different religion… Muslim, Jewish, Satanist .. whatever. I suspect the outcome may have been different despite the fact it would have involved exactly the same principals used in his ruling.. just someone who didn’t want to do something because they didn’t approve of the other person.

  • The_Wretched

    Side note for the home crowd. Legally, that a xtian is violating the xtian religion (of whatever type) and thus doesn’t have a leg to stand on for claiming religious privilege isn’t something that can be argued at law. It’s a good argument in comment sections and with RL people but it’s not an area the courts are willing to enter.

    That’s partially due to the plurality of views for a given religion (like 30,000 sects of xtians) and partially due to the difficulty of having the government rule that a person is accurate in religious belief or not.

    I’ll also note that the judge’s position only makes sense if you already grant religion a special prividgle that says discrimination is a valid religious belief. We should never allow them to just claim that special priviledge from the get go. It must be called out every time they make their ‘equivalency’ argument. (or so piously wring their hands and say that these cases are soooo difficult).

  • William

    Did Bakersfield ever change from meth to opioids as the official narcotic?

    • Harveyrabbit

      Not yet. meth is still cheaper.

      • Stogiebear

        Then she can’t go out of business soon enough. Meth and sugar both rotting away these poor benighted souls teeth is just more than any community ought to have to deal with.

    • Treant

      I think they went straight to injectables.

  • Lars Littlefield

    Ick.

  • Kenster999

    Hmm, you would think conservatives would say, “Hey, I don’t want the government deciding whether my tire business allows me artistic freedom!”

  • slightly OT…
    But what do ya’ll think about Tammy Duckworth running for prez?

    • Tread

      I think she would be an effective Cabinet member. I’m all in for Kamala Harris, however.

  • edrex

    just curious: how does she market her discriminatory business? is she on “yelp” or craigslist?

    • Harveyrabbit
      • edrex

        thank you. that’s helpful.

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      She should be required to post a large sign indicating that she discriminates, so all potential customers can know as soon as they approach the business.

      • The_Wretched

        Dems should submit a bill.

      • edrex

        until then we can post that for her, at the very least on her yelp page.

  • William

    Shouldn’t there be a questionnaire before accepting customer at a bakery?

  • JCF
    • that brings up a really good point.
      Say both parents are illegal. They have 2 kids who are like 5 or so years old (but are American citizens). What do you do, deport the parents, but then who assumes their guardian role (and cost)?

      • The_Wretched

        The usually deport the kids (US citizens) too.

        • really? didn’t know.

          • The_Wretched

            They could get citizen relatives to take them too but not everyone has them nor wants to split the family.

      • Treant

        They toss the kids. The kids are free to return at any time, or to stay if–as noted–they can find fosterage in or out of the family.

        It can lead to interesting cases where one parent is deported and the rest of the family follows.

      • JCF

        Mixed status families face this dilemma CONSTANTLY. Do you (as a parent) keep your young children w/ you, and deny them the American privilege of their birthright (and often put them in life-threatening danger)? Or do you surrender your American children to another’s care? [Many families leave young children w/ older siblings—but that presumes the older siblings are safe! (the oldest are often Dreamers)]

    • Moebym of the Returners

      I’m fresh out of outrage. There are just too many happenings to be outraged about that I’m spread thin.

  • Ninja0980

    One more thing, the go some place else won’t always be an option.
    In Upstate NY where my aunt and uncle live, there’s one cake shop etc. for them.
    It’d be another 20-30 minute drive depending on the weather if you want to go someplace else.
    The notion people should have to do that on account of someone’s bigotry is absurd.

  • jm2

    Wait! So the last time my auto serviceman, Mike, fixed my slowly leaking tire it wasn’t an “event”? Lampe decides what is or isn’t an “event” now? ~ “… All the sweet, green icing flowing down….”

  • BeaverTales

    Not a surprise coming from Kern county, and our conservative SCOTUS may even agree this year in the Masterpiece decision. If we’re lucky correct, the right to “free speech” won’t supercede the right to public services available to everyone else that Christians dislike: Muslims, atheists and interracial couples, for example.

    The Montgomery boycott of 1955-56 (during the civil rights movement) was won by blacks walking painful miles to work for almost an entire year in all kinds of weather, rather than sitting in the back of the bus being treated like ghosts..

    No one ever won a revolution by sitting on La-Z-boys in their living rooms and complaining about how unfair things are.. We’ll just have to refuse to patronize the businesses of bigots, and get our friends to do the same….we have free speech too.

  • AtticusP
  • Rebecca Gardner

    I’m confused. First he writes, “The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence.”

    Then he writes, “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”

    So he’s saying because sexual orientation is not covered under Unruh then go ahead and discriminate away as much as you like? That’s really sad and a cop out.

    • The_Wretched

      He’s reciting deepities and ruled that xtians are special (xtian free speech means a right to discriminate contrary to clear State law). The argument is a regular one by the religious conservatives.

    • stevenj

      Sexual orientation (and more) is covered under Unruh:

      “The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1][2] This law applies to all businesses in California, including hotels and motels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[3] The law was enacted in 1959 and was named for its author, Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified as California Civil Code section 51.”

      Confusing indeed. And hoping there is an appeal to the State Supreme Court.

    • clay

      The judge was trying to distinguish between expressive (custom designed / baked) goods and common (finished, already on display to the general public) goods. The test case would be that asshole baker in Colorado whose “custom designed” cakes were just reproductions from an existing design book.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Well, Comic Sans is the font of Satan.

      • Dazzer

        Looking at some of the cakes on the bakery’s site and from the Yelp reviews, the ‘designs’ of the cake are pretty generic. You’d find the same thing in many other cake shops in the same town.

        I’m not sure they’d stand the test of being an artistic, stand-alone endeavour.

        • clay

          Yet Lampe bought it.

          • Dazzer

            To be fair, I bet his wife does all the cake-buying in that household.

  • JWC

    It was a suggestion brought up a few weeks ago and I still think it has a lot of merit Align with a coalition of indigenous nation in the US that have no affiliation with ICE and have these nations temporarily adopt the DREAMERS, affording them protection until this hate process from the GOP has passed

    • clay

      That would require that the parents (of minor Dreamers) forfeit all parental claims.

      • JWC

        thats the trick of it Clay temporary not permanent and include the parents Basically to confound the GOP process

        • clay

          There is no “temporary” adoption in US state law. Maybe you mean “fostering” rather than adopting? But fostering isn’t sufficient to protect the children from deportation.

          • JWC

            clay you have absolutely missed the point never mind

  • Adam Stevens

    My suggestion:

    Have one of the gay men go into the shop with a straight woman. Place the order for the cake. On cake pickup day, bring your female friend and your own gay cake topper. Keep it in your pocket. When the baker brings you your cake AND the transaction is completed, remove the hetero cake topper, place your gay cake topper on top, and exit the store.

    If I lived anywhere near her, I would start doing this today.

  • boatboy_srq

    This begins the countdown to the day she’s out of business and whining and crying on all the Xtianist broadcasts about the eeeeevil Hoamseckshuls that drove her from her enterprise. Free Markets!

  • Harveyrabbit

    I wonder if they’d refuse to make a b’day cake for a little kid they’d deem born in sin out of holy wedlock or to a kid from a legally married same sex couple.

    • Blueflash

      Or to a man or woman, who’s been divorced, and entering into a second marriage. A very clear Bible no-no.

      • Longpole

        So they won’t bake a cake for Trump’s or Newt’s next marriage?

        • Blueflash

          They most likely would, if they could stop themselves from jumping up and down with joy at the thought.

  • Jay George
  • Chris Gardner

    I can understand their viewpoint in some ways BUT I think they screwed up when they mentioned there is nothing sacred about a tire. So, in other words, the state is deciding that a wedding cake is sacred while other things are not sacred.

    On a separate note, I am starting a new religion based upon the virtues of a nice Goodyear tire. Praise to the tire God. No homos.

    • edrex

      vulcan?

    • Treant
      • Harveyrabbit
        • Chris Gardner

          He’s the Tire Pope.

        • Treant

          The Shitelin man? No.

      • wmforr

        Quiz: What is his name?
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        Bibendum

        • Treant

          So he’s bi and he bends ’em any which way?

          🙂

        • Dazzer

          There used to be a massively high-powered restaurant in the Kings Road in Chelsea (London) called Bibendum.

          It was based in an old Michelin petrol station – a massively art deco place.

          I remember it from when it was a petrol station when I was a kid. My cousin and I would go in and pretend to look the tyres until the workers either gave us two shillings to go and buy some sweets or would give us little Bibendum publicity figures.

          • BobSF_94117

            Had dinner there once, many moons ago. Wonderful.

    • Friday

      The judge is basically ruling a cake is ‘expressive speech’ while at least trying to rule that this doesn’t apply to retail goods. In that sense it doesn’t make much of a precedent for Christianist Jim Crow, but you know it invites all kinds of other businesses and public offices etc to try their luck and force LGBT people to go through the courts if we want to be treated as full citizens in the public marketplace.

      The Christians can say it’s abotu ‘faith’ all they want, but all they got in this district is a ruling that says a cake is like a printing press. We’ll just see where the camel’s nose goes next there.

    • RJ Bone

      Heathen! All should instead worship my bowl of pasta!

      Holy war!

      Ra’men.

  • TexasBoy

    “Our business is God’s business, we work for him. I shouldn’t be picked on because of my beliefs.”

    Please, show us the Almighty’s signature on your paycheck.

    Interesting, the appraisal for the building…in California no less, shows over 31000 sq ft and an appraised value less than $40,000?

    • Harveyrabbit

      “appraised value less than $40,000”

      They’re waiting for jesus to fix the leaking roof, rotting walls and exterminate the chronic roach and rat infestations.

    • The_Wretched

      They used a bakery with nothing to lose then. That’s very common for the test plaintiffs.

    • edrex

      hmmm…. is it church owned?

    • stevenj

      The bakery is in Bakersfield in the southern San Joaquin Valley, not SF or LA metro areas where land/property values would be much higher. Also, the owner of the building may be covered under Prop 13.

      • TexasBoy

        I thought only residential property was covered by prop 13?

        • stevenj

          Nope. One of the errors of Prop 13.

  • Statistics Palin

    So can a gay cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon refuse service to Southern Baptists? Heart surgery is more creative and individualized than cake decoration. It’s against his beliefs to prolong the life of Pat Robertson.

  • Statistics Palin

    These are very bad test cases for us. Don’t take them to court. Try the bakers in the court of public opinion.

  • FAEN

    THIS. IS. BS.

    Thanks protest voters. Thanks so fucking much!

  • FAEN

    I bet she’s made tons of cakes for divorced people.

    • StSean

      And non-vigins.

  • cleos_mom
  • metrored

    “‘The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,’ Lampe wrote.”
    That is such a nonsense distinction. The only categorical difference between the custom and premade cakes is that the baker doesn’t know they would be going to a gay couple while baking them.

  • Cackalaquiano

    “I shouldn’t be picked on because of my beliefs.”
    “But them gays should be utterly harrassed at every opportunity for being that way”
    “The muslims too, while we’re at it.”

    These Christianists are just so self absorbed.

    • JCF

      -ists.

      • Cackalaquiano

        Christianists. You’re right. Not all are the same.

    • BobSF_94117

      “I shouldn’t be picked on because of my beliefs.”

      “Stop throwing money at me!!!!”

  • -M-

    So is this judge saying that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc who have religious or moral objections to discrimination or to blaming bigotry on God can refuse to make things for people like this woman or Mike Pence? Or is he lying?

  • Harveyrabbit

    I posted this to their Yelp page but I don’t know if it will stick. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97b4c8a2e71750387e933aced1787e4a1d130d7f57ac62010bc5a173b5aa4b92.jpg

    • John Calendo

      Don’t. Bad karma. This comes back on us.

      • Harveyrabbit

        I’m more than willing to absorb any bad karma.

      • RJ Bone

        So, when is all the bad karma going to kick in for the centuries of bullshit from their side?

        Not being snarky – seriously. We’re worried about karma and they slaughter populations with little repercussion because of what they call their god. And let’s not even get into the racists, etc.

        If karma really does work, it’d be nice to see it distributed equally.

    • Dazzer

      I doubt they’ll allow it, but it made me laugh. I especially liked the part about sprinkles.

    • stevenj

      I did the same several months ago but not about mouse poop. My comment was more about the business discriminating against same sex couples. I got an email from Yelp about 2 weeks after I posted and was told it had been removed.

      • RJ Bone

        I suspect she’s going to milk the shit out of this court case with Yelp for all of her reviews and not just the parody and activist ones.

        “Ohhh, woe is me, The Gays are picking on me! This horrible review (that is 1000% true) is totally false because The Gays are picking on me (and has nothing to do with my shitty service and dry cupcakes)! Yelp, help meeeee!”

  • caphillprof

    I don’t agree with refusing wedding cakes for any couple. But since when do wedding cakes have any wording on them?

  • Jmdintpa

    Under His Eye…. its coming gender traitors… if trump is not thrown out of office or dies and we stay the current path its coming.

  • Well, it’s true that wedding cakes are sacred. Because Jesus said, “Let them eat cake!” I’m pretty sure about that. He was on the cross at the time. As I recall, they had offered him some sponge cake on a stick, or something. And he wanted them to share it with the thieves on either side.

  • Blueflash

    Assuming we lose in the Supreme Court, I’m hoping that there’s a fundie Christian baker or florist or candle-stick maker, who has the guts to refuse service to an opposite-sex mixed race couple. It’s not as if lots of them don’t still oppose “miscegenation”, God having intended that the races be kept separate. What would the courts do in that case? Let it stand or start playing at being theologians? No, no, no, that’s not a legitimate religious belief!

  • Dale082

    Fuck this bitch and fuck everyone like her. I hope the next time she dines out she’ll get a gay waiter who recognizes her and he’ll put a “little somethin’ extra special” in her order.

  • coram nobis

    The ruling seems to be over California law, the Unruh Act, and it’s worth noting that the state constitution’s declaration of rights is more robust than its U.S. counterpart. Next stop is the state appellate courts, then the state supreme court. As with the Pennsylvania gerrymandering case, if it’s a matter of state law the U.S. Supreme Court might not hear it.

    And the ruling is narrow. As to what a ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop does in this case, we’ll have to see.

    Fun fact: Bakersfield is in Kevin McCarthy’s district.

    But Lampe wrote that his ruling was tied closely to the fact that Miller was being asked to create a cake for an event.

    And he cautioned that religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Act in other circumstances.

    “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,” Lampe wrote.

    His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.
    — Bakersfield.com story

  • Rick Jackson

    Picket on the sidewalk in front of her place of business every hour she is open. Make sure people know they are buying from a bigot.

  • nocadrummer

    “Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe has ruled…”
    That pretty much says it all. Kern County is EXTREMELY conservative. One has to drive through it to get between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Some farmers blame Pelosi and Obama for the drought, rather than realizing that their own watering practices (flood the fields and let it drain off, no windbreaks, etc.) exacerbate their problems.
    If this ruling happened in Los Angeles County, I’d be surprised if the outcome would be the same. This ruling from that county doesn’t shock me at all.

  • netxtown

    Put it on the fucking front door! If YOUR religious beliefs prevent you from serving EVERYONE – then be brave enough to put in on the front door. At least have the decency and courtesy to not waste my time.

    • -M-

      On the front door, in every ad, and on your webpage.

      • HazumuOsaragi
        • JCF

          No. I don’t like that old “homosexual behavior” DOUBLE-STANDARD: sexualizing us, in way they’d never do w/ hets. The only “homosexual behavior” of mine they need concern themselves with, is the ability of THIS homosexual to reach into my wallet, and pay for their shit.

          If they had a sign on their door that said “We only cater to people who put penises in vaginas, and don’t put anything that is NOT a penis anywhere near a vagina”, what do you think that would do to their het traffic, hmm?

          • Ann Kah

            On the other hand, it would allow those of us who are straight (but support our gay friends) to know that “Hmmm. I’m not shopping here!”

          • RJ Bone

            Bingo! That’s why they won’t put up signs like that. Buying a cake ignorant of the makers’ bigotry is still possible if you don’t advertise it.

            As it is, the only reason they’re still in business is because of the county’s religious population and the general lack of knowledge from the rest and from passersby.

      • Maybe it’s time for us to flag these bigot businesses.

    • RJ Bone

      Too cowardly. They know the population of people who love and respect the LGBT community is growing, not to mention those in the community who are feeling more able to open up to the world about themselves. Their business would tank, especially after photos of the signage went viral.

      That’s why they always spin it as being the victims, I think. They want to hate and get away with it.

  • John Calendo

    Someone left the cake out in the rain.

    • JIM W

      “Bernice has left her cake out in the rain.”

  • peterparker

    “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,” Lampe wrote.

    But they can places their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of sexual orientation.

    Fucking idiot.

  • Gigi

    This is bullshit. If she can’t refuse to bake a cake for a black couple then she can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. End of story. I hope they appeal this decision. I’m tired of Talibangelists using their sky daddy as an excuse for being bigots. “Our business is God’s business, we work for him.” No you don’t, you work for the people who buy you goddamn cakes.

    • Ann Kah

      “…he cautioned that religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Act in other circumstances.”

      So if blacks are considered a protected class under this act (and thus can’t be discriminated against by a religious bigot) it would seem that the move should be to get sexual orientation declared a protected class.

      • clay

        Gender expression is already in the Unruh Act.

        • Ann Kah

          Ooh. In that case this is “special pleading” which should be readily overturned by a higher court, I hope.

    • stevenj

      I was thinking the same thing. There are enough racists in Calif that this could happen.

  • Highmoremotel

    This judge comes off as ignorant to lifestyle choices vs born this way.

  • Friday

    An interesting angle on dealign with that district now is that it’s a ‘speech’ argument, not a ‘religion’ argument as to whether or not others can discriminate. Free speech actually applies to everyone. Unlike the Orwelilan “Religious Freedom” carveouts the Right really wants out of this.

  • DN

    The US DOJ has already invalidated the judge’s argument about the tire shop. They issued guidance that said specifically the government cannot adjudicate on the sincerity of any religious belief. In other words, if I say that selling tires is a religious experience for me, the government cannot tell me it isn’t.

  • wmforr

    Please, let some baker use this as a precedent and refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding.

    • Dreaming Vertebrate

      Members of a religion are already protected against such discrimination.
      Apparently, it’s just members of the LGBT community who are not.

  • drbrentzenobia

    No matter how this judge ruled, this won’t be the final word.

  • Stubenville

    “There’s a name for you, but it isn’t used in high society… outside of a kennel.”

    Joan Crawford

  • BlindBill

    “There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire” … there is nothing sacred about a marriage either – it is a civil contract …. and a cake is not “expressive art”, it is dessert. No one asks who made a cake at a wedding, and if she did not know they were gay, and was not asked to put a same-sex topper on the cake, she would have gladly taken the money with no fuss.

  • Capt. Dave

    So, why would you even want to buy a cake from someone like this? And even if the law compelled her to, I would be leery of eating it.

  • leastyebejudged

    Typical California bullshit.

    • stevenj

      Just curious. What state do you live in?

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Gee, if we’re not too liberal, we’re too conservative.

  • Ok. It’s time for us to be proactive and start a webpage of businesses we have been treated well, and have no issue with either our orientation or gender expression. In places of extreme bigotry, we will have to be inventive and figure out creative ways to have the wedding we deserve.

    • AJayne

      When Obergefell happened, and businesses in “red” areas were making noisy threats about “having to serve gays,” someone came up with a cute window sticker for friendly businesses to post, welcoming all – if we combined use of that sticker with feedback confirmation of actual patrons, we may end up with an accurate picture of commerce in each part of the country…

  • Gregory In Seattle

    Kern County: no surprises here. That was the last county to hold out on performing same sex marriages, after all. I very much expect that the state Supreme Court will slap this down very hard.

  • KnownDonorDad

    Ridiculous. California has its own version of ENDA, what is the judge thinking?

  • Jack

    This decision was on a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the plaintiff can appeal this decision, the actual case is yet to be heard.

  • BobSF_94117

    Again, the BAKER is protected. The BAKERY is not.

    • GanymedeRenard

      Good point.

  • Mike

    So, this judge thinks banning blacks from lunch counters ought to be legal because free speech. Refusing to rent rooms to Jews is kosher because free speech. Refusing to hire or rent an apartment to or to fill prescriptions for gay people because they are gay is just fine because free speech.

    It’s a safe bet that the judge is not a member of any tribe that’s ever had a door slammed in its face. It’s a pity he’s a judge.

    • clay

      The judge expressly rejects both of those, even in the part Joe excerpted.

  • j.martindale

    We have been over their bullshit ad nauseam. If this judge thinks what goes on in some superstitious baker’s head is more important than the equal treatment of gays under the law, fuck him and the horse he came in on. We may lose this decision now. We may lose it again in the SCOTUS, too, with some of the bigoted SOBs that inhabit the court right now. But be assured, this issue will not conclude with any decision that permits discrimination to be protected by American law. As long as there are proud, out gay people, we will fight to BE accorded the same dignity that all other citizens are accorded. And just as there have been injustices in the past like the sodomy laws and the decisions to prohibit marriages of LGBT peoples, those decisions will ultimately be overthrown, because we are RIGHT.

  • Robin Bailey

    YELP.

  • Xuuths

    Well, judge lampe is an idiot. Easily overturned on appeal. Masterpiece may make that moot.

  • JackNasty

    Did anyone else bother to read the article? The case hasn’t gone to trial yet. It’s a ruling for a preliminary injunction only.

    Excerpt the linked article:

    “But his ruling, on a motion for preliminary injunction, only leaves Miller alone until the full case comes to trial. The next hearing on the case is set for June. But Miller’s attorney said he will move for dismissal of the case immediately because of the strength of Lampe’s ruling.”

  • SammySeattle

    Kind of makes me want to go in with a woman, purchase a “heterosexual wedding cake” then make a video of a dozen guys pissing on it.

    • SammySeattle

      #art

    • TexasBoy

      What?! And waste the cake? I’d change the name and show it being enjoyed at a gay wedding! Then have a TV anchor interview her and ask how the gays eating her cake personally affected her.

    • Gil

      Go in with a woman. Order wedding cake. Go back to pick it up with obviously gay partner and see if she will sell it.

      • SammySeattle

        That one might be too obvious.

      • clay

        Since the judge expressly said she couldn’t refuse to sell a cake already prepared without violating CA law . . .

  • GanymedeRenard

    This is very confusing, if not contradictory. Silence is protected but you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but you can still discriminate against a person of a specific sexual orientation provided you choose silence?

  • YES, YOU SHOULD BE “PICKED ON” for your “beliefs – because you’re a BIGOT. If this was truly about being a Christian – you’d also refuse to make cakes for adulterers (anyone who has been divorced) or cohabitors (any couple living together before marriage) — because those are things Jesus actually spoke against. BIGOT. Shame on you.

  • Dana Chilton

    Of course, it goes without saying that he gets to “judge” but as the government he cannot place selective and subjective limits, especially when his ruling is based in the fundamental protections of the first amendment. Tires “aren’t sacred” says HIS own personal opinion yet SCOTUS ruled that religion is personal and doesn’t have to be based in facts or be coherent or rational it just have to be believed. so when someone comes along and says “my tires are sacred” the logic of his ruling fails his limits fall and “as a matter of law” the religious objector could legally get away with not selling tires to gays

  • Bob Conti

    Well, it is Kern County, land of oil and right wing Trumpers. I’m sure it will go up to the Court of Appeal and I wouldn’t be surprised if the California Supreme Court granted review. Stay tuned kids.

  • Piet

    Judge appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger to a newly created post in a deeply conservative district. How surprised are we?

    P.S. – Lady if you’re running “God’s business”, I hope you’re not banking a profit from it – the profits should be going to God, not into your personal account.

    Now, pardon me while I go off and mutter in a corner.

    • TexasBoy

      Judge appointed by adulterer, father of a child out of wedlock, and hypocrite, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to a newly created post in a deeply conservative district. How surprised are we?

  • Barry S G

    Does this mean that we can discriminate against straight people with impunity?

    • clay

      Only if you’re a more “expressive” gay.

  • Artsy
  • Bob Conti

    WHOA! I just checked the source, all that happened is that the Calif. Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing, the state agency that enforces the Unruh Act, lost its petition for a preliminary injunction. THAT’s not surprising, because the DFEH has to be able to show that money would be an inadequate remedy, risk of irreparable harm, likelihood that the state will prevail on the merits and a weighing of harm to plaintiff vs. harm to defendant. The underlying case is still going forward, all that happened is that the court wouldn’t issue an injunction.

    • itsjoe618

      Thanks for digging a little deeper and fully fleshing out the context.

  • Dave B

    Bakersfield is the Alabama of California.

  • John Doe

    Don’t ya just love cherry picking “God’s” people. How much you wanna bet that she was happy to make cakes for Non Virgins on their wedding nights, or adulterers, or divorced people, I can go on and on, but you get the point. Bigotry is bigotry, you can wrap it up in religious BS, but it’s still bigotry.

  • jayjonson

    Kern County is the a–hole of California. This ruling will be overturned by appellate courts.

    • LesbianTippingHabits


      Don’t you mean a s-hole?

      Besides, with such ‘welcoming’ attitudes as these, I guess Kern County isn’t going anywhere for quite a long time.

      Sad !

  • Paul

    I honestly think the free speech angle should scare the gay community moreso than the religious freedom one. It’s WAY more compelling and doesn’t privilege any one group over the other, like “religious freedom” does.

  • lattebud

    I hope that judge has a massage lined up because that was a total convoluted contortion of logic that must have cause some strains.

  • HandsomeMrToad

    Hasn’t the judge ever heard? Bakers can’t be choosers.

  • Mark_in_MN

    Today in logical fallacies in court: special pleading.

  • Franciscan

    This ruling is on a pre-trial injunction, so the actual case is apparently still to come. The judge it seems to me is ruling as narrowly as possible, and I would say this result could plausibly come out of San Francisco or Los Angeles as easily as from Bakersfield. Interesting, the point in the decision about the seller being obligated to sell to anyone if the wares were already made and set out in the window. There is no way his conclusions could be taken to justify the refusal of, say, a state adoption agency to serve a single-sex couple. (We’ve already had that type of case in California.)

  • Joe Paulson

    There is nothing inherently expressive about a cake and there are a range of things that involve artistic skill. Why not car parts? Are they willing to help provide good and services to a same sex wedding in general but a cake is different?

    What sort of religious line is this? If a vegan based on views with a conscientious component wanted to not support animal abuse, providing the means to go to the slaughterhouse would be be covered by many of them. There is “design” and “craft” in a range of things. A car could be driven by the couple with a “just married” sign. Wouldn’t providing stuff for the car “endorse” the message too?

    When libertarian free speech activists like Eugene Volokh argue cake claims like this are a step too far, perhaps it is a warning sign.

  • LesbianTippingHabits


    This fight is not worth it. Think about what is at stake. Thank you.

  • normadesmond

    Said it before, needs repeating…
    DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK.

  • andrew

    Bigoted bakers abound.

  • Charlie

    Delighted to know this bakery takes a stand against what they don’t like. We all have that freedom. Like my freedom to boycott this establishment and ALL establishments based on flimsy interpretation of 2,000 old half remembered accounts of nonverified people. All such christian establishments should put signs in their windows so we can know exactly what businesses to avoid.