California and its courts aren’t getting the message. After the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 303 Creative v. Elenis, and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, it should have been crystal clear that religious objections to participating in celebrating a same-sex wedding ceremony presumptively get First Amendment protection. But not in California, which is why Cathy Miller, a custom baker in California, recently filed a certiorari petition in Tastries v. California Department of Civil Rights.
Miller’s petition presents the question whether California’s public accommodations law violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses when it is used to compel Miller to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding in violation of her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage.
Don’t be surprised if this question sounds familiar. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar issues multiple times over the past decade. Eight years ago, the Court ruled for Jack Phillips, the custom baker in Masterpiece, whose petition presented similar questions. Four years ago, the Court ruled in favor of Catholic objectors in Fulton against a Philadelphia nondiscrimination law. And two years ago, the Court protected wedding-related speech in 303 Creative, holding that Colorado’s public accommodations law could not trump the First Amendment.
In Miller’s case, California started its enforcement action against her eight years ago, after the Court had granted review in Masterpiece but before it had rendered its decision. But even though the Supreme Court decided Masterpiece, Fulton, and 303 Creative in the interim, the Orwellian-named California Civil Rights Department continued its civil prosecution of Miller. And although the trial court ruled in Miller’s favor, the California Court of Appeal reversed and the California Supreme Court refused to hear the case. This kind of state-court intransigence in response to Supreme Court precedent has become increasingly common, leading to 9-0 reversals in cases like Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin.
That stubborn resistance is a big reason why the Court ought to grant Miller’s petition. California and the California courts should not be allowed to simply evade the Court’s rulings over many years just to score political points by punishing religious believers. The only way the cake wars are going to end is if the Court makes them end.