By Michael Peabody –
Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, has been standing in a courtroom as much as she’s stood at an oven for nearly a decade. What started in 2017 with a request for a custom wedding cake has spiraled into one of the longest-running free speech and religious liberty fights in California. Miller declined to make the cake for a same-sex couple, citing her Christian beliefs. Within weeks the California Civil Rights Department had her in its sights. The fight has lasted longer than most bakeries themselves, with Miller trading flour for filings, mixers for motions .
The trial court gave Miller the early win in 2022, ruling that her wedding cakes were “pure speech” and protected under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeal flipped that in 2025, insisting a plain white tiered cake “conveyed no particularized message” and was mostly just dessert. When the California Supreme Court refused to intervene this past May, Miller’s last card was to file for review at the U.S. Supreme Court .
Her petition poses three pointed questions. First: does the Free Speech Clause only apply if an outside observer thinks the baker is endorsing the wedding? Second: does California’s anti-discrimination law qualify as “generally applicable” even though it contains exemptions for some conduct but none for religious conscience? And third: should Employment Division v. Smith—a 1990 precedent that cut back protections for religious exercise—be scrapped entirely ?
The stakes go beyond Miller’s shop window. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it would be the third time in less than a decade that the justices have been asked whether wedding vendors can refuse to provide services for same-sex ceremonies. Earlier rounds involved Colorado baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop and web designer Lorie Smith in 303 Creative. Both produced fractured rulings that left space for states like California to keep pressing enforcement actions. Miller’s petition argues this “patchwork” approach has left bakers, photographers, and others guessing what rights they actually have, depending on which courthouse they land in.
California, for its part, insists its Civil Rights Act applies evenly, requiring all businesses to provide equal access regardless of sexual orientation. The appellate court agreed, saying the law doesn’t target religion and that enforcing it against Miller ensures couples aren’t turned away. Miller’s attorneys counter that forcing her to design, deliver, and serve a custom cake at a ceremony is not neutral commerce—it is compelled artistic participation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will grant review. If it does, arguments could be scheduled in 2026, putting buttercream and the Bill of Rights back on the same plate.
Commentary:
Forget the frosting for a moment. The real story here is compulsion. Can the state shove a piping bag into your hand and say, “Write these words, cut this cake, smile for the photos,” even if every fiber of your belief tells you not to? That’s the line this case draws. If the government can force expression, then the First Amendment is a costume—bright, decorative, and hollow.
California’s position is that its law is neutral. Neutral until you read the fine print. The law already makes space for some exceptions—secular ones. It bends here, stiffens there, but never for faith. Neutrality becomes a loaded word when the exemptions don’t cut both ways.
That’s why Employment Division v. Smith keeps rearing its head. Since 1990, Smith has told religious claimants: if the law is “generally applicable,” you lose. Over the years courts have stretched “general applicability” to cover everything from loyalty oaths to pandemic restrictions. It’s become an elastic stamp—snap it over the case and move on. For Miller, that meant her faith was outweighed by a statute that can already flex for other conduct.
So what hangs in the balance isn’t whether one couple gets a cake. They already had a cake, made by someone else. The real weight is whether the state can conscript someone’s labor and artistry against their conscience. Miller says no. California says yes. The Court, if it takes the case, will have to decide if free speech and free exercise mean protection, or just a slogan you can print on parchment—and then eat.
Tags: Cathy Miller Supreme Court, Tastries Bakery lawsuit, same-sex wedding cake petition, First Amendment religion and speech, Employment Division v. Smith
