- Feb 5, 2002
- 184,055
- 67,194
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
When the state forces a Christian baker like Cathy Miller to create a wedding cake for a ceremony she cannot in conscience affirm, it’s coercion.
The Supreme Court has once again been asked to consider whether Christians may faithfully live their convictions in public without being penalized by the state. This time, the petition comes from Bakersfield, California, where Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, was fined for declining to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.
Miller is a grandmother and small-business owner. She offered the couple any pre-made cake in her shop and even referred them to another baker. What she could not do, in good conscience, was use her artistic gifts to create a cake celebrating a union she believes contradicts God’s design for marriage. For that act of fidelity, she has been ensnared in years of litigation by the California Department of Civil Rights.
Represented by the religious liberty firm Becket, Miller has asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The petition invites the court to clarify vital questions at the intersection of conscience, expressive freedom and religious liberty. First, may the government compel a believer to participate in a ceremony — even silently — when her faith informs her that participation constitutes an affirmation of what she cannot endorse? Second, does the Free Exercise Clause require proof of overt official discretion before recognizing unequal treatment, or may religious burden alone suffice? And third, must Employment Division v. Smith continue to limit protections for believers, even when laws — neutral in name — nonetheless coerce them to act against conscience?
Continued below.
www.ncregister.com
The Supreme Court has once again been asked to consider whether Christians may faithfully live their convictions in public without being penalized by the state. This time, the petition comes from Bakersfield, California, where Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, was fined for declining to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.
Miller is a grandmother and small-business owner. She offered the couple any pre-made cake in her shop and even referred them to another baker. What she could not do, in good conscience, was use her artistic gifts to create a cake celebrating a union she believes contradicts God’s design for marriage. For that act of fidelity, she has been ensnared in years of litigation by the California Department of Civil Rights.
Represented by the religious liberty firm Becket, Miller has asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The petition invites the court to clarify vital questions at the intersection of conscience, expressive freedom and religious liberty. First, may the government compel a believer to participate in a ceremony — even silently — when her faith informs her that participation constitutes an affirmation of what she cannot endorse? Second, does the Free Exercise Clause require proof of overt official discretion before recognizing unequal treatment, or may religious burden alone suffice? And third, must Employment Division v. Smith continue to limit protections for believers, even when laws — neutral in name — nonetheless coerce them to act against conscience?
Continued below.
Supreme Court’s Tastries Bakery Case Offers Opportunity to Solidify the Promise of Religious Freedom
COMMENTARY: When the state forces a Christian baker like Cathy Miller to create a wedding cake for a ceremony she cannot in conscience affirm, it’s coercion.
