It's a Bakersfield story going national, and just as national issues divide the nation along political fault lines, so the Tastries Bakery story is dividing Bakersfield residents along similar cracks and chasms in our community.

When Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled Monday that bakery owner Cathy Miller may continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, his decision ignited discussion — and less savory exchanges — on Facebook and other social media platforms.

But before we get to that discussion, a few facts should be understood. The underlying case itself was not decided Monday. Judge Lampe simply denied a motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have compelled Tastries to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples during the interim period — essentially from the time the injunction was granted and the day the case was concluded, likely several months into the future.

Now that that's clear, on to the discussion. And if you didn't think Bakersfield was a microcosm of the polarized electorate in the nation, a glance at digital media's answer to the water cooler should change your mind.

"Thankful for common sense," JoAnne Gause Cole wrote on The Californian's Facebook page. "There are restaurants that have dress codes, can't come in without shoes, or have to have a shirt, etc. Each establishment should have the right to set up their own standards."

Bakersfield resident Cindy Mcelroy appeared to agree that businesses should have the right to refuse service, at least in the Tastries case.

"Obviously facts were looked at, and under our constitution, the owners of the bakery did nothing wrong," she said. "Why they needed a judge is crazy. Get a cake somewhere else. It's super simple."

Karen Pierce, of Bakersfield, disagreed. She argued that such behavior could open the door to discrimination.

"So what happens when someone uses their 'religion' to discriminate (because that's what this is) against an interracial couple? Or a black family wanting to celebrate their child's birthday? Or a clean-shaven man? Cause it's in the Bible (Leviticus 19:27). Where will the line be drawn?"

After some commenters went after Pierce, Monica Garner Ramsey seemed to come to her defense.

"So Karen asked, what about interracial marriages?" Ramsey said. "That was denied based on Christian views for centuries. What about selling maternity clothes to an unwed mother? Wedding cake for a twice-divorced person? Where will the line be drawn?"

And so the conversation continued over any number of posts, sometimes polite and respectful, other times, less so.

Some comments raised interesting questions.

"Let me ask this," David Nunlist wrote on TBC Media's Facebook page. "When the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a similar case later this year, is it really going to matter what happens here?"

Indeed, Nunlist appeared to be referring to the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips who, similar to the Bakersfield case, refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple's marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The case is currently being heard in the nation's highest court.

As a lawyer for Phillips argued Wednesday on behalf of the baker's "artistic expression," Justice Elena Kagan and other justices asked where they were supposed to draw a line designating which business owners could qualify for an exemption from anti-discrimination laws, CNN reported. Could a jeweler do the same? What about a makeup artist? A hairstylist?

Depending on the underlying laws affecting the two cases, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision could have a profound impact on the ultimate fate of the local Tastries case, said Bakersfield attorney Seth O'Dell.

But the preliminary injunction Lampe ruled on Monday is a tiny part of the larger case, O'Dell said. Care should be taken not to give too much weight to its outcome.

Steven Mayer can be reached at 661-395-7353. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter: @semayerTBC.

(5) comments


I'd like to comment....but I have to go down and buy some cakes at Tastries....


This is just opening the door to more discrimination. What we can do is unite and protest this establishment by purchasing baked good by other local bakeries who open their doors to all. Tasteries will just lose business so who is the real winner here?
Unfortunately, the court is using the argument of "freedom of religion," because it didn't want to really dive in to the issues. What to court has done, is allow for all the racists and homophobic establishment refuse service based on color, gender and sexual orientation.


Finally a judge with some common sense, we will continue to purchase items from this establishment. The 9th Circuit Court will undoubtedly over turn this decision, but hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold it.


It's just a cake. Why would you want to give any business to a narrow minded religious fanatic who refuses to practice what God commanded. God's "great commandant" to us all is "LOVE ONEANOTHER", period, end of sentence. There is NO "if they comply to my ideas" caveat here. Let's see who ends up in hades. The loving couple or the hateful business owner. We'll let God decide.


I have been in the property management field for years. We do not discriminate due to major law suits, laws change all the time, we have properties where we do not allow pets but this an example, we can't discriminate against a therapy or service animal. Laws change all the time.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.