The California Supreme Court has chosen not to hear an appeal from a Christian baker who declined to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, maintaining a lower court ruling that found the action to be discriminatory.

According to the Christian Post, this decision leaves in place a ruling that the baker's refusal violated anti-discrimination laws, despite her argument that her actions were based on religious convictions.

The case began in 2017 when Cathy Miller, owner of a Bakersfield-based bakery called Tastries—also known as Cathy’s Creations—refused to create a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, citing her Christian beliefs about marriage.

That same year, California’s Civil Rights Department took legal action, claiming Miller had breached the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating based on characteristics such as sexual orientation.

In 2018, Superior Court Judge David Lampe sided with Miller, stating that her refusal to design the cake was protected under the First Amendment. The judge added that because Miller referred the couple to other bakers, her actions respected the customers’ rights while honoring her own beliefs.

Initial Favorable Ruling for Baker Overturned

Years later in October 2022, another Kern County judge, Eric Bradshaw, concluded that the state had not shown sufficient proof that Miller’s decision amounted to discrimination. He wrote that she intended to remain true to her Christian doctrine regarding marriage, and that such a motivation was neither arbitrary nor unjustified.

The case then advanced to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, which ruled against Miller in February, determining that she had willingly denied service to the couple based on their sexual orientation.

This appellate court emphasized that the cake was a routine consumer product and not an expression of the baker’s personal beliefs, saying the item did not constitute speech worthy of First Amendment protection.

Appeals Court Warns of Broader Implications

According to the February decision, interpreting artistic products such as cakes as protected speech could severely disrupt trade and consumer affairs. The court stated that treating designed goods like vehicles, jewelry, or dinners as expression under free speech would undermine key commercial law principles.

The justices warned that such an expansive view of what constitutes self-expression would essentially turn any custom-made good into a platform for personal ideology, thus impacting routine transactions in the marketplace.

Following the appellate court’s decision, Miller appealed to the California Supreme Court. However, on Wednesday—though the exact date was not released—the state’s highest court declined to hear the case, effectively upholding the appellate ruling.

Legal Team Plans Federal-Level Appeal

Adèle Keim, senior counsel at Becket, the law firm representing Miller, criticized the California Supreme Court's refusal to take up the case. In a statement released Thursday, Keim expressed disappointment and announced intentions to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“As the United States Supreme Court has made clear twice already, creative professionals like Cathy Miller shouldn’t have to choose between following their faith and practicing their art,” Keim said. She argued that the state should have dropped its case earlier and let Miller work peacefully in line with her beliefs.

Keim declared the legal team’s intention to continue the fight, stating they would ask the country’s highest court to uphold Miller’s right to create custom products that do not conflict with her Christian values.

Supreme Court Has Tackled Similar Cases

The case echoes recent high-profile decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2018, the Court ruled in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, finding that his First Amendment rights were infringed when he was penalized for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex marriage.

More recently, in 2023, the nation's highest court sided with a Christian freelance web designer in Colorado, deciding that the state could not force her to design wedding sites for same-sex couples, highlighting similar issues around religion and free expression.

Judge Lampe, in his 2018 ruling in favor of Miller, had emphasized that the First Amendment requires society to respect people’s efforts to live out their religious convictions, especially regarding long-standing views on family life.

Ongoing Debate Over Religious Freedom and Public Services

The contrast between workable customer service and individual liberty remains a driving concern in such legal battles. In Miller’s case, earlier judicial findings credited her with offering alternative options to the customers, while higher courts later emphasized the underlying discriminatory denial.

As this case potentially heads to the U.S. Supreme Court, legal observers will be watching closely for whether the justices decide to take it up and further shape the legal landscape around freedom of religion and equal access to services.

For now, the refusal by California’s top court signals a continued shift toward interpreting public business services as obligations not shielded by individual merit-based conscience objections — a legal stance that could influence other pending cases across the country.