Judge Rules California Can’t Force Baker to Create Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ in Violation of Her Christian Faith

Photo Credit: Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A Superior Court judge has ruled that the State of California cannot force a baker who identifies as a Christian to create cakes for same-sex “weddings” in violation of her faith. He differentiated between selling a generic product on the shelf with having to specially create a cake that celebrates an event that her religion prohibits.

“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake,” Judge David Lampe noted in his ruling on Tuesday to deny the State’s request for a preliminary injunction. “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,” he declared.

As previously reported, two lesbian women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, who already “married” in December 2016, approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake. Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, offered to call another baker who could accommodate them as she herself could not be a part of the event.

“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller told ABC23 News. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”

The women, upset that she had offered a referral instead of creating the cake herself, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law. Miller’s attorneys say that she received hateful messages and death threats as a result of the situation.

The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.

  • Connect with Christian News

“California respects and celebrates diverse religious beliefs and freedom of speech, but does not create exceptions to its civil rights laws to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Director Kevin Kish said in a statement.

“After a careful review of the preliminary facts, DFEH concluded that legal intervention was warranted to ensure equal access to services and prevent harm resulting from discrimination until our investigation is complete,” he outlined.

Judge Lampe denied the State’s request for an emergency injunction in December, advising that he wanted to allow time for Miller to respond. A hearing for a preliminary injunction was held last Friday, and according to Miller’s attorneys with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, hundreds of Bakersfield residents gathered outside of the courthouse to pray for Miller prior to the hearing.

On Tuesday, Judge Lampe ruled in favor of Miller, and differentiated between not allowing a person to buy anything from one’s store because of their homosexuality, and being forced to create something that presents a message that is against one’s religion.

“The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is 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,” he wrote. “A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell 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 public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe continued.

However, “[t]he difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” he noted.

“Would this court force a baker who strongly favored LGBT rights to create and design wedding cake she had refused to a Catholic couple, in her protest of the Catholic Church’s prescription against same-sex marriage?” Lampe asked. “The answer is ‘No.’ This court has an obligation to protect free speech, regardless of whose foot the shoe is on.”

“A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct,” he also noted. “The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”

Lampe ruled that the State could not outweigh its interests with Miller’s free speech rights and noted that there were ample alternatives for the lesbian women as “Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield.”

“For the reasons stated above, the application for preliminary injunction is denied. The State cannot succeed upon the merits, and the balance of hardships does not favor the State,” he concluded.

Read the ruling in full here.

Miller’s attorneys cheered the ruling upon its release.

“Cathy would never discriminate against anyone who walks through her bakery’s doors. She will gladly serve anyone, including same-sex couples,” said President Charles LiMandri. “But Cathy will not use her artistic talents to express messages that conflict with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • akagaga

    Wow. A judge (in California!) who speaks in clear English and understands religious rights. Thank you and may God bless you abundantly, Judge Lampe.

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Kern county is historically red and Judge Lampe was appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        K …. so what ……..

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Good call ………..

    • Tangent002 ✓

      So you are okay with a baker refusing an inter-racial or inter-faith couple?

      • LynnRH

        inter-racial and inter-faith is not a sin.

        • Tangent002 ✓

          Depends on who you talk to.

          • Scott Davenport

            Guess you’re talking to the wrong people, as I’m fine with hotties of any race… 😉

          • LynnRH

            God doesn’t say in the Bible inter-racial or inter-faith marriage is a sin. I only listen to Him. Not humans.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Those who follow a Christian Identity theology would say the same about you. For them, inter-racial marriage is an abomination and it is you who are apostate.

          • Michael C

            Do people who hold beliefs different than yours have the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech?

        • Blake Paine

          ‘Sin’ is a violation of religious law and every American has a constitutional right to NOT share any religious law the owner might hold. A business can’t refuse a customer because they think they are ‘sinning’ or, again, at the very least state that they will refuse to sell to ‘sinners’ when they advertise.

          • LastNameFirst

            Obviously, you either didn’t read the entire article, didn’t understand what the judge said, or both. It wasn’t a matter of ‘selling’ them a cake; it was a matter of ‘making’ one knowing that it was a sin in her mind. Freedom of religion is also a part of the 1st Amendment, just like freedom of speech. They could have picked a cake that was already made on the shelf and Miller would have sold it to them, but they wanted one to be made. Just like going to a blacksmith to have a knife made instead of buying one already made.

          • Blake Paine

            And the business freely offered custom wedding cakes to the public knowing that it didn’t matter if the responding customer was ‘sinning’ according to a belief tge owner knew they had no legal obligation to share!

            Contracted services are just as protected by civil rights laws as any other. If the owner can’t serve some beliefs they have to be up front about it in the original offer, not after the fact.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        “So you are okay with a baker refusing an inter-racial or inter-faith couple?”

        So you are okay with conflating inter-racial or inter-faith couples with depravity?

        • Michael C

          All three types of relationships are different in nature. No conflation necessary

          However, a person who opposes interfaith or interracial relationships has the same freedom of speech as the person who opposes gay relationships.

          …or do you think some people have the freedom of speech and others do not?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they all have the freedom of speech …… they do not have the “freedom” to force others to say what they do not want to say …… in the form of a t-shirt …… or a cake …… and yes …… IT IS CONFLATION …… as the use of the cake would be to condone DEPRAVITY ……….

          • Michael C

            …… they do not have the “freedom” to force others to say what they do not want to say ……

            That’s what Tangent002 is saying. According to this court’s decision, people who oppose interracial marriage would have the same freedom to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple.

            According to this court’s decision, an interracial couple does not have the “freedom” to force others to say what they do not want to say.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            fine with me ………… but again ……. inter-racial is not depravity according to scripture ….. and if a christian did it they would have no scriptural basis for doing it …… and what homosexuals do is against scripture ……… and no one has any authority to compel acts or speech that the other person disagrees with ….. unless you are depraved ….. in which case the use of force is de rigueur ………

          • Michael C

            …. inter-racial is not depravity according to scripture …..

            It doesn’t matter what scripture says about interracial marriage. Free speech is free speech and everyone has it even if what they’re saying isn’t “scriptural.”

            …… and no one has any authority to compel acts or speech that the other person disagrees with …..

            You are saying that a bakery can refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple.

          • Blake Paine

            What does ‘scripture’ have to do with it? Everyone has a right to NOT believe in your ‘scriptures’ in America.

            Again, if they weren’t going to sell to people of all beliefs, why did they offer the wedding cakes to the public, a group that is composed of all beliefs?

            If they are going to be bigoted about what beliefs they serve they should, at a minimum, have to state that in every offer they make.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            this is a christian forum ….. on a christian site …. for christians to discuss those things relevant to CHRISTIANITY …… so here ……. IT IS ALWAYS RELEVANT ….. that is what it has to do with it ………….. and FYI ….. they were not asking for things that ARE for sale to the general public …… they were asking for a SPECIALTY item for a SPECIFIC purpose for which the person selling had a disagreement as to the use …………..

          • Blake Paine

            We are talking about the law, not Christianity or any other religion. And these wedding cakes were offered for sale to the public without restriction – they can’t just say ‘Oh we didn’t mean you’ when the invited customer comes through the door.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. again ….. this is a CHRISTIAN forum about those things pertinent to CHRISTIANITY and CHRISTIANS ….

          • Blake Paine

            But notaall americans since everyone has a constitutional right to not share these beliefs. So only offer to sell to ‘christians’ then.

          • Harry Oh!

            Ya, as if someone like you would be as willing to do the same with people you disagree with. It’s just because this particular situation involves gays that you’re all up in arms. If it was a Christian who was denied a service by whoever, you wouldn’t give a crap. Typical one-sided hypocrites.

          • Blake Paine

            Ha! It’s ‘christians’ that are one sided. They turned on the head of Oregon BOLI was involved in the ruling about the religious discriminating bakery when just a year before he protected a christian from a religiously discriminating business with an even bigger award.

            The ‘christian’ pity party is very one sided.

          • Michael C

            If it was a Christian who was denied a service by whoever, you wouldn’t give a crap. Typical one-sided hypocrites.
            -Harry Oh!

            This judge claims that he believes that it would be acceptable for a bakery refuse service to a customer simply because the customer is Catholic.

            I couldn’t disagree with this judge more.

            Citizens are protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of their religion.

            Why is it that I would stand up for your right to be protected from discrimination but you wouldn’t do the same for me?

          • Blake Paine

            No one forced the business to offer wedding cakes to the public.

            If they weren’t offering it to the public why doesn’t their advertising say that in the first place?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a wedding is a SPECIAL event and requires a certain amount of PERSONAL involvement of the baker ……….. IN THE FIRST PLACE ………..

          • Blake Paine

            Not in the slightest. The baker is in the bakery and never needs to set foot at the site of the wedding reception if they so choose.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and YET that is not the issue as it REQUIRES their intimate involvement whether they ATTEND ….. or NOT …………..

          • Blake Paine

            No involvement they didn’t freely offer for sale to the public. If they can’t make wedding cakes for those that don’t share their beliefs they wouldn’t have offered the sale of them to the public – a group of all beliefs – in the first place.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            their work is their intimate involvement ………. so no ………….. the hardware store owner is not obligated to sell a hammer to a person who makes it known they are going to use it to crush another persons skull ………. but it is freely for sale to anyone else ……….

          • Blake Paine

            But they are obligated to sell it if they know it’s going to be used to build a church. That you use a criminal act to attempt to illustrate your point just illustrates you are knowingly trying to deceive.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … they are not required to sell them a hammer that would be used to kill another …. and they may sell it to whom the decide is going to use it as intended ….. not for depraved uses ………

          • Blake Paine

            Nope can’t refuse a customer because of a legal belief based usage. The depraved part is the unAmerican action of the business owner.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUP ….. sure can ………..

          • Blake Paine

            Nope, that’s a violation of their civil rights, federal, state and local in this case. Won’t serve people of all beliefs then grow a set and say so with the offer, not cowardly reject customers responding to what they thought was a legally compliant offer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. their sexual rights do not trump the sellers 1st amendment rights …… there is no right to violate the business owners rights with another persons so called right ………

          • Blake Paine

            ‘Sexual rights’? And there is no right to make illegal offers in the first amendment.

            And that you pick and choose what rights you acknowledge just shows this is really a childish temper tantrum and not based on reason, the law, or the constitution.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            EXACTLY ………….. and a persons SUPPOSED (and it is supposed as there is no law passed by anyone to make homomarriage a civil right) does not trump the WRITTEN law of CONSTITUTIONAL rights ….. and even in places where it is written …… the business owners UNALIENABLE rights are not trumped by some made up “civil right” ……………..

          • Blake Paine

            There is no constitutional right to make fraudulent offers. They are required to respect the public’s civil rights when offering things for sale. The owner knew that before offering the cakes for sale. Every customer has a constitutional right to NOT share the owner’s beliefs about marriage and s civil right to buy the cake and use it consistent with THEIR OWN beliefs.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            there was no “fraudulent offer” ……………. they offered to sell them a cake ….. and the business owner had a right to refuse based on their right to freedom of association …………… and to NOT be associated with the purpose for the cake that was made known to them ……………

          • Blake Paine

            No the customer came in for a cake done in a wedding style as offered and can buy one regardless of their beliefs surrounding marriage as their civil rights protected. Making an offer and then illegally rejecting a customer makes it s fraudulent offer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … they can buy one from another person who will do it for them … and that is what was offered …… it was not illegal …. it was a fraudulent wedding ……. two men or two women do not make a wedding ………… it is a fraud …………

      • bowie1

        It’s not about who or what they are. It’s about the creation itself which might be offensive to the artist. It’s like being forced to create pornography.

  • Tangent002 ✓

    I’m sure this will be appealed.

    • Tree Kangaroo

      You upset over this? Pobrecita.

      • Tangent002 ✓

        I’m a fan of equal rights.

        • Tree Kangaroo

          Sexual deviates are not equal to normal people. Therefore they do not deserve equal rights. If I ran a bakery, and some pervert told me to make him a cake for the wedding of him and his dog, I would tell him to get out of my shop. A law compelling me to in any way to participate in sexual perversion is a bad law. What you people do in private is your own business. Forcing us to be a part of it is a crime.

          • james blue

            Should it be legal for a baker to refuse to sell weeding cakes for Christian weddings?

          • LynnRH

            I’d just find one that did. And I for sure wouldn’t be out looking for those bakery’s that I already knew would want to refuse. Just to cause a big stink.

          • james blue

            Fair enough, but the question was should it be legal. At the moment big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws say it is illegal.

          • Blake Paine

            ‘Big government’? You mean ‘the people’? Every civil rights law in my state was challenged by a vote of the electorate. Its the people that think religious discrimination by a business is in violation of the basic rights of the people.

          • james blue

            Yes big government. Freedom and liberty are either protected or violated and it doesn’t matter how many or how few “voted for it”

          • Blake Paine

            And the people are free to buy something without civil rights discrimination. That’s the will of the people, not ‘big givernment’

          • james blue

            It discriminates on the civil rights of the person selling his wares.

          • Blake Paine

            There is no ‘civil right’ to make fraudulent offers. The business either offers the public the sale of wedding cakes legally respectingbthe customer’s civil rights or they shouldn’t have invited the public to begin with.

          • james blue

            I disagree with the premise that it is a fraudulent offer, but running by your logic they are not allowed to say “straights only” or “gays only” because their civil right to do so is violated by big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws.

          • Blake Paine

            Of course they can’t discriminate by sexual orientation.

          • james blue

            They should be allowed to.

            A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. A self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

            On the other hand if a christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

          • Blake Paine

            It’s the business that made the offer and had the legal obligation. There is no right to say they won’t serve people that don’t share their beliefs.

          • james blue

            There should be that right.

            Make no mistake I find people who refuse service repugnant and I hope their business fails. But they should have the right.. It’s like free speech. I may disagree with what you say, I may even find it repugnant, but you should have the right to say it.

          • Blake Paine

            No, they knew the rights of those they advertised to before making the offer to the public – no discrimination by a civil right. By making the offer with no intention of respecting those rights they made a fraudulent offer.

            There should be no right to ignore the rights of others.

            The right of the business owner is to not make such offers in the first place if the feel they can’t respect those rights.

          • james blue

            I disagree.

          • Blake Paine

            You disagree with what? That I should be able to ignore your rights? Makes the whole discussion rather pointless then as it invalidates any claim of rights the business owner might have.

          • james blue

            I disagree with your assertion about “fraudulent offers” and I disagree that the right to refuse to do business isn’t a right. it is a right that is being violated.

          • Blake Paine

            If a business makes an offer they have no intention of fulfilling compliant with the law (civil rights statutes) then it is fraudulent by definition. What word would you use for that situation?

            And since statutes preventing civil rights discrimination have been found constitutional by the SCOTUS multiple times the problem is the constitution allows things you don’t like.

          • james blue

            They are not making the offer, they are refusing. If they took the money saying they would make a cake then didn’t, that would be fraudulent.

            There is nothing in the constitution forcing private businesses to serve anyone. That would be big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws.

          • Michael C

            This argument doesn’t work because Christians are in the favored majority. Discrimination isn’t a threat to Christians. They’ll shrug off this notion everytime (as exhibited by LynnRH). A better question would be whether or not it should be legal for a bakery to refuse service to Jewish or black customers.

          • james blue

            Regardless I still asked and as a regular you should know that many frequent visitors to this site and sites like it believe that Christians ARE being discriminated against.

            I use Christian to attempt to invoke empathy.

          • Blake Paine

            If this ruling stands it certainly does.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Good thing laws are based on the protection of rights not your obscene version of morality.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUP …. and they PROTECTED the RIGHTS of this business owner …………

          • Blake Paine

            There is no ‘right’ to offer to sell the public wedding cakes and then refuse someone because their beliefs allow them to use it in a way someone else’s don’t.

            This is just religious discrimination by the business, pure and simple. If this is allowed the business could refuse to sell cakes for just about any reason they want, just because the ‘feel’ that what the person was going to use it for was ‘wrong’.

            Its bigoted thinking like this that prompted civil rights being recognized and protected over 100 years ago.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YES THERE IS a right to not have to be forced to participate in an EVENT that is not to system of belief ………

          • Blake Paine

            They were never asked to participate in the event.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes they were ….. to bake the cake ………..

          • Blake Paine

            No, no cake baking occurs at the event.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. the baking of the cake with the knowledge of its specific use is involvement ……..

          • Blake Paine

            every customer has a right to use their purchase consistent with their own beliefs, not the business owner’s. Lee.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure they do …. but if they make the use known …. and they did …. and the seller has a problem with that purpose then they have no obligation ………….

          • Blake Paine

            Nope not how it works. The Muslim customer has a right to make their purchase even if it will be used as part of their beliefs. Ditto someone who beliefs allow interfaith marriages, marriage regardless of sexes, etc.
            Can’t selll to people of any belief don’t offer it to a group comprised of all beliefs, ie the public. The invited customer’s own right to religious freedom protects them from after-the-offer religious discrimination like this.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUP ….. how it has always worked ……..

          • Blake Paine

            Nope. if that were true the Piggie Park Enterprises would have been decided for the owner, not the customer.

          • Blake Paine

            The baker was never invited to the event and was only asked to do what they freely offered to the public they would do – sell them a wedding cake.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the baker was invited to bake a cake for it and declined ….. and they offered to find them someone who would accept …………

          • Blake Paine

            No the bakery invited the public to buy wedding cakes from them, the customer is just taking them up in this freely made and presumptively legally made offer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …… it is not recognized as a wedding as it does not meet the biblical requirement of being a wedding …… and if all they wanted was a cake it would have been provided …… but that is not what the asked for ….. and the act of agreement with the request is against their religion ………..

            John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

            1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

          • Blake Paine

            Every member of the public has a right to not share the business owner’s beliefs about marriage and the business owner knew they couldn’t discriminate because of the customer’s beliefs before making the public offer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure they do … and the business owner has the SAME RIGHT ……………

          • Blake Paine

            There is no right to make a fraudulent offer. Won’t serve people of all beliefs then need to loudly stare it with the original offer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it was not a fraudulent offer …… it WAS NOT a marriage …. it was a homomarriage ………. no offer was made for that ……….

          • Blake Paine

            The offer was about a cake, not a marriage and the business owner doesn’t get to decide what the customer’s use their purchase for.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “The offer was about a cake”

            and they said they would have sold them a cake if that is all they asked for ……. but CLEARLY that was not what was asked for …………. and you are right …. the business owner does NOT get to decide its use ….. and they did not ask ….. the buyer VOLUNTEERED the information …… and if a person comes to me and asks if they can rent a car to rob a bank or some other activity that i disagree with on MORAL grounds ….. i have NO OBLIGATION to comply …………

          • Blake Paine

            They refused to sell them the advertised cake, offering them a different cake has nothing to do with it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            So What ………….. they have a right to say where their efforts of baking the cake would go …………. it was not just a sheet cake they wanted ……. they wanted one that required special effort to produce ……….. no one has a right to demand a thing be sold to them when it is made known the purpose for which it will be put ……

          • Blake Paine

            And the business offered the availability of ‘special effort’ cakes to the public. Your difference is no difference at all.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right …. to ACTUAL marriages ….. not fraudulent ones …………

        • Scott Davenport

          No…you sound like one of those sick in the head abominations…..

  • manwithnoname

    “Protect free speech” That sums it up nicely!

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    STATE PAYS FOR FORCING MAGISTRATE TO QUIT OVER SAME-SEX ‘MARRIAGE’
    Courts ‘required by law’ to accommodate her Christian beliefs

    ~WND

  • james blue

    Quite right, and it should be legal for private businesses to refuse goods and services to Christians too.

  • Tree Kangaroo

    It’s what the fascist left lives for: forcing people to do things.

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Wow. And I thought you Conservatives were all about the rule of law.

  • Michael C

    It’s worth pointing out that the customers requested a cake design directly out of the bakery’s display case. They didn’t ask for a “gay” wedding cake, they just asked for a wedding cake no different than what the business willingly sells to other customers.

    It’s also worth noting that the rationale used by Judge Lampe would also allow for a bakery to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple if they disagreed with interracial relationships for any reason (not just for religious reasons).

    This decision is definitely an outlier.

    • Blake Paine

      Yes it is the customer that creates the design of the cake, not the cake decorator. Same with the case in Colorado where the business specifically said they could pick a basic cake design and they would customize it to the customer’s desires.

      • LastNameFirst

        Don’t know where you heard that, but that’s a lie. I live in Colorado and know about this one from the very beginning. They specifically asked for the baker to design them a cake for their gay wedding. Don’t know what lies you are reading, but the local papers are the first, and best news source. And you are also wrong as to WHO designs/creates the cake. The customer may state what they want on it, but the baker is the one who designs/creates the cake. It is the bakers vision that becomes the reality, not the customers.

        • Blake Paine

          Considering both sides said in deposition the design of the cake was never discussed it seems that you have fallen victim to the alt-rights fake news. You aren’t the first but that you didn’t bother to read the depositions yourself just shows you’ve got ‘itchy ears’ for what you want to hear.

          • LastNameFirst

            Think what you want. The design doesn’t need to be discussed when the couple stated exactly what the cake was for. At that point the baker explained his religious faith and belief, and even offered to contact another reputable baker that he knew who would make the cake, but they refused. And the deposition doesn’t cover everything in its endeavor. I can tell that you know little about criminal law. And I prefer to read; not listen. But instead of coming down to your level with false accusations, I’ll just bid you a good night. BTW, don’t bother with anymore of your petty insults, nor even reply, because I won’t lower my standards to respond to you again. Good day.

          • Blake Paine

            And do when you know your argument has failed you toss out a red herring, some fake news, and light your hair on fire and leave in a faux huff.

            I’m glad I don’t share your standards.

  • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

    🙂 Than You Jesus.

  • Praise God!

    However, let’s recognize these victory for what it really is: Scraps for the downtrodden* from America’s secular masters’ table. And they’ve been the masters ever since a cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic thinkers replaced the 17th-century Christian Colonial governments of, by, and for God for their own humanist government of, by, and for the people.

    Had the constitutional framers (like their early 1600 Puritan predecessors) established government and society upon Yahweh’s immutable/unchanging moral law (including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), there would be no homosexual agenda in America period because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk expose themselves to petition government for their “rights.”

    For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

    *What was Christendom (Christians dominionizing society on behalf of their King) in 17th-century Christian Colonial America has tragically devolved into mere 4-walled Christianity, aka Christendumb. The bulk of today’s Christians are best depicted by Christ in Matthew 5:13 as salt that’s lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man. See our blog article “Self-Imposed Impotence.”