California Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruling Against Baker Who Declined Same-Sex Wedding Cake Order
On May 28, 2025, the California Supreme Court denied review of a closely watched case involving Cathy Miller, owner of the Bakersfield bakery “Tastries,” effectively upholding a state appellate ruling that she violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act by refusing to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Miller, represented by attorneys from the Thomas More Society and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, had petitioned the state’s high court to revisit the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision, arguing that it violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The denial of review ends that effort, allowing the lower court’s opinion to stand.
The case arose from a 2017 incident in which Miller declined to create a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, citing her Christian beliefs. While Miller offered to refer the couple to another bakery, they filed a complaint with the state’s Civil Rights Department. The department sued under the Unruh Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other categories.
After a 2022 bench trial, the Kern County Superior Court ruled in Miller’s favor, finding her custom cake work constituted protected speech and expressive conduct. However, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed in early 2025, holding that Miller’s actions violated the Unruh Act and that her First Amendment defenses were unpersuasive. The appellate court concluded that a cake requested by the couple was not inherently expressive and that Miller’s refusal constituted impermissible discrimination under California law.
Miller’s legal team had asked the California Supreme Court to align state precedent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which found that states cannot compel artists to express messages they disagree with. They also argued that the appellate ruling conflicted with the federal Free Exercise standards laid out in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and Tandon v. Newsom.
The California Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case does not include a written explanation, which is customary in such denials. As a result, the Fifth District\’s ruling remains binding precedent within its jurisdiction and may influence how other California courts address similar conflicts between anti-discrimination laws and religious expression.
Legal observers now await whether Miller’s attorneys will petition the U.S. Supreme Court. The Becket Fund, one of the legal groups involved, has previously taken religious liberty cases to the nation’s highest court.
If Miller seeks U.S. Supreme Court review, a petition for certiorari must be filed within 90 days of the May 28 denial.
Analysis:
The California Supreme Court’s denial of review in Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc. closes the door on Cathy Miller’s state-level defenses, but it does not resolve the federal constitutional questions her attorneys raised. The core issue — whether creating a custom wedding cake is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment — is precisely the kind of unresolved legal conflict that often attracts U.S. Supreme Court attention, particularly in the wake of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
Miller’s position is that designing a wedding cake is not just commercial activity, but a form of artistic expression imbued with personal religious meaning. The Fifth District Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the cake requested by the couple “nondescript” and lacking in inherent symbolic meaning. That framing narrowed the constitutional analysis and enabled the court to conclude that no compelled speech occurred.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative emphasized that speech protections apply broadly to expressive businesses — including those that customize their products for events like weddings. If Miller’s legal team petitions the high court, they will likely argue that California courts failed to apply 303 Creative properly and misinterpreted the threshold for what constitutes expressive conduct.
As for the Free Exercise claim, the appellate ruling leaned on North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court, a 2008 California decision. Miller’s counsel argues that North Coast is outdated in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia and Tandon v. Newsom, which instruct courts to apply strict scrutiny when laws permit comparable secular exceptions. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court agrees that the Unruh Act fails that test could be the next chapter in this long-running legal conflict.