Lesbian couple with hidden cameras searched for baker who would decline to make a wedding cake

By Jonathon Van Maren

Shortly after gay marriage was legalized in the US by the Supreme Court, one major LGBT activist and donor had an announcement to make about the future plans of the movement: It was time to “punish the wicked,” he said. The “wicked,” by the way, is now shorthand for “those who have religious objections to gay marriage.”

We’ve seen that unfold now for three years. Bakers, photographers, and other professionals have been targeted over their moral objections to same-sex marriage. After Jack Phillips won the Masterpiece Cakeshop case at the Supreme Court, LGBT activists promptly badgered him with new requests (including a request for a cake topped by the Devil performing a sex act) until they secured his refusal to bake a cake celebrating gender transition, and dragged Phillips back into court.

LGBT activists like to innocently claim that they have no choice but to persecute these Christian business owners, because it is impossible for them to carry on knowing that someone has deeply held moral objections to celebrating their relationship with them in a professional capacity. Some activists spend time phoning different establishments, attempting to ferret out opponents to the LGBT ideology in order to destroy their reputations through boycotts, protests, and social media vitriol. And as the Christian Post reported this month, some show up prepared for war:

Two lesbians who filed a complaint against a Christian baker after she declined to make a cake for a same-sex celebration wore hidden microphones to record the refusal, according to a press release from the baker’s attorneys.

“The evidence shows that this was all a set-up to get money and to destroy Cathy for her Christian faith,” said Charles LiMandri, attorney with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund. “The couple never intended to actually celebrate their marriage with a custom cake from Tastries. We hope as this case moves forward, the full truth will come to light.”

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) recently filed a new lawsuit against Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, seeking financial damages for emotional distress suffered by the two women.

“Although they wanted only a simple wedding cake, the couple’s quest did not proceed as smoothly as their search for a venue. They visited several local bakeries and tasted cakes, but had been unsuccessful in their search when Eileen serendipitously drove past a bakery called Tastries,” the lawsuit states.

The women then found a “simple cake design” they liked in a display case and wanted to have it replicated, but when they returned for a tasting a week later, Miller referred them to another bakery after realizing the order was for a same-sex celebration.

“Tastries’ explicit refusal to sell the Rodriguez-Del Rios a wedding cake because they intended to celebrate their wedding so devastated the couple that they considered purchasing a premade, non-wedding cake from a grocery or big box store,” the complaint reads. “Once exciting, planning their wedding reception became a painful and emotionally upsetting process.”

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund opines, however, that the women’s claims don’t add up.

“Although the lawsuit claims ‘Eileen and Mireya did not know what to do’ after the incident, the record shows the couple immediately took to social media, and within 30 minutes Miller began receiving death threats and emails containing images of people engaging in depraved sexual acts. News crews arrived shortly afterward,” the organization outlines.

The lawsuit also asserts that the women suffered both physically and emotionally, stating that “Mireya’s nose started to bleed—which was completely out of the ordinary—and she got a headache.” It further contends that “[a]lthough she tried to contain her emotions, Eileen later broke down, and her emotional anguish aggravated her rheumatoid arthritis.”

Miller’s attorneys say that they learned during the investigation stage of the case that the women had come prepared with hidden microphones, which raised questions about their motives.

“Despite the couple’s claim that they were ‘[s]tunned, hurt, and offended,’ facts discovered during investigation shows that the couple had intentionally been searching for a business that would ‘discriminate’ against them, wearing hidden microphones to catch a business owner in the act,” outlined the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.

In other words, these women were functioning as activists and were fully intending to destroy this baker’s life should she decline to cooperate with their request. They were actively attempting to find someone who would refuse them, so that they could claim to be traumatized, demand money, and initiate a digital lynching of their target. This is malicious and unacceptable behavior—and the LGBT war on Christians who disagree with them has emboldened these sorts of people:

As previously reported, the two women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, who “married” in December 2016, went to Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake, which was to be for their reception. They found one they liked, and came back days later for a tasting, during which time they were directed by an employee to meet with Miller.

Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, offered to call another baker who could accommodate them after she learned that the cake was for a same-sex celebration as she herself could not be a part of the event.

“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller told ABC23 News. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”

The women, upset that she had offered a referral instead of creating the cake herself, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the DFEH, which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law.

The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.

In February 2018, Judge David Lampe ruled in favor of Miller, differentiating between a legitimate case of discrimination if a person refused to sell a generic product on the shelf, with declining to specially create a cake that celebrates an event that one’s religion prohibits.

“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake,” he wrote. “The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.”

“A wedding cake is not just cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” Lampe also noted. “The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”

He said that the women had ample alternatives as “Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield.”

On Oct. 17, a new complaint was filed against Miller, seeking damages for emotional distress and an injunction that would require her to create and/or cakes for same-sex events. It also has petitioned the state court of appeals to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Lampe to change his order.

“Tastries does not ask customers ordering a ‘custom’ wedding cake whether either member of the couple being celebrated has been divorced or has had a child while unmarried,” the lawsuit argues.

“Tastries’ employees have delivered wedding cakes while wearing clothing not marked in any manner identifying them as employees of Tastries. Tastries sometimes delivers wedding cakes at a time when no guests or members of the wedding party are present,” it says.

The DFEH is asking the court to order Miller not to refuse any further cakes for same-sex celebrations and to conduct employee training for the next five years in regard to the matter, “[s]ubmit[ting] an annual report to the DFEH for five years identifying any services defendants deny to customers based on free speech or religious grounds.”

It also asks that Miller be ordered to “[j]ointly and severally pay to the Rodriguez-Del Rios actual damages, including but not limited to their out-of-pocket damages, expenses incurred in filing and pursuing their complaint of discrimination, and emotional distress damages for each Unruh Act violation up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than $4,000 per offense, plus interest,” as well as punitive damages.

“This meritless lawsuit is proof that California’s pro-LGBT bureaucrats will stop at nothing until Cathy is put out of business,” LiMandri said. “For over a year, Cathy’s family and employees have faced death threats, lewd messages, and vandalism. The sad truth is if the government wins, then no Christian business owner will be safe from persecution.”

Cathy is not the only one. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case set a good but incomplete precedent at the Supreme Court, and we hope that the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh means that there is now a permanent 5-4 conservative majority on the Court in regard to matters of religious liberty. Despite Donald Trump’s uncanny ability to perpetually embarrass himself, social conservatives badly need the one thing he continues to deliver: Courts stacked high with judges who will serve as an essential line of defence against the LGBT movement in the future.

______________________________________________________________

For anyone interested, my book on The Culture War, which analyzes the journey our culture has taken from the way it was to the way it is and examines the Sexual Revolution, hook-up culture, the rise of the porn plague, abortion, commodity culture, euthanasia, and the gay rights movement, is available for sale here.

FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

18 thoughts on “Lesbian couple with hidden cameras searched for baker who would decline to make a wedding cake

  1. Leslie Smith says:

    So many comments can be made, least of all shame on the lawyer acting for these two scam artists. The matter has already been heard in the US SC. No self-respecting lawyer would buy the crap that these two are peddling. Secondly, their medical claims are bogus. Who gets a nosebleed, headache, mental breakdown or rheumatoid arthritis from not being able to buy a product they wanted? How utterly pathetic and weak-willed do you have to be become ill from not getting what you want? Not even a 2 year old could accomplish that. Thirdly, if these two women were operating in good faith AND had any brains in their head at all, they would open a bakery geared specifically to LGBTQ and apparently, do well with it. Obviously, they are not operating in good faith but with malevolent intent to destroy the shop owner’s business. The shop owner needs to counter-sue, BIG TIME. I sure as heck would be suggesting that to her if she were my client. I will continue to pray against this wickedness by these two scammers and whoever else tries their hand at planned destruction of someone’s business. Praying for the Christian shop owners.

  2. MYOB. says:

    Indentured servitude is slavery. It’s illegal. You can’t compel someone to do your bidding. These two hideous cretins can go somewhere else. It’s literal religious persecution what they’re doing. The SCOTUS already rulednon this precedent. It’s over.

    These morons keep up their perverse crap. No wonder they always end up being thrown off buildings and whatever. Perversity isn’t love. They’re hostiles.

  3. Cherry Walker says:

    I was impressed with your article until you had to throw our POTUS under the bus. Without his leadership and willingness to take on the tough issues our country is facing, where would we be today? Shame on you.

    • Jonathon Van Maren says:

      I don’t think I threw him under the bus. I think that he does a lot of great things, but that his personal attacks on people are embarrassing (especially his attack just after the midterms on pro-life Congresswoman Mia Love, who spoke at the March for Life last year and has an amazing record fighting abortion.) Appreciating that a politician is capable of doing both good and bad things is simply part of looking at situations objectively. When he does good, I write about it. When he does bad–like attacking a pro-life hero–I think that sort of thing should be noted as well.

      • ChicagoNurse says:

        That’s just it. The President is not a politician. That’s why he was elected. I’d rather have a leader who is rough around the edges, a blowhard, if you will—-than an Obama who stands there looking pretty and does nothing for his country for two full terms.

        • Jonathon Van Maren says:

          I would certainly rather have a Trump than an Obama, and I’ve written as much many times. I simply do not understand the idea that one can never criticize one’s preferred president, especially not if it is warranted. Citizens are not sycophants, and it isn’t healthy to view politicians uncritically (he is a politician by definition, regardless of whether he acts like one–in many ways he has redefined politics.)

          • R Holroyd says:

            Yes..
            The worst thing a polatician can have is to suround them selves with Yes men. They never see the real situation…Marie Antionett

      • Jina says:

        Ohhhhh but you did. This has absolutely nothing to do with President Trump but….you just had to throw it in didn’t you??? Disgusting

      • josh says:

        funny I didnt see anything in the article that suggests Trump does anything but embarrass himself. honestly I’m failing to see how the burn on Trump added to the article at all. I was liking your stuff till I read that.

    • ChicagoNurse says:

      Yes. My feelings exactly. It was out of place in this article. Some of us love our President, faults and all. I’m so sick of hearing the same liberal crap…the vitriol and hatred toward him. It’s gotten old.

    • QueenMel says:

      I felt exactly the same way…fully supportive of this article right up until POTUS was added into it in a negative manner which served no purpose in supporting this statement, We have an incredible president that takes so much hostility and stands up for our military, law enforcement and American citizens with gumption like no other. Sad writers can’t just focus on the topic without trying to step on our President in the process.

  4. Richard McClatchey says:

    This same thing happened to Melissa’s Cake business in Gresham, Oregon. She was successfully fined and the couple lost their business, simply because they refused under the same circumstances to celebrate a same-sex wedding. They owed something like $135,000 to the state and they received death threats and we’re vilified even by many professing Christians.
    Worse, the two lesbian couple we’re said to go there, knowing full well Melissa’s Bakery operated.
    This situation screams out the problem in America these days.

  5. Karla says:

    After a great indebth article, you had to take a jab at our President. We read enough of it on leftist hit pieces…. Why here? It did not segue nicely….. Seemed to have been jammed in.
    Could have just stated the fact about him appointing conservative judges…. I don’t get it.

  6. Ed says:

    The CPC should not be supported financially by conservatives unless and until resolutions are passed at a national policy convention that indicate support for traditional marriage and family, respect for life from conception to natural death and opposition to gender fluidity. Caving to progressives on these basic issues should disqualify CPC from monetary support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *