A Bakersfield, California, baker has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case challenging a state law that requires businesses to provide services to same-sex couples. The petition is the second such case involving wedding cakes to reach the high court in recent years.

Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, is contesting an action by the California Civil Rights Department after she declined in 2017 to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio. Miller referred the couple to another local bakery. The department filed a lawsuit in 2018, alleging that Miller violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by businesses.

In 2022, Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled in Miller’s favor, recognizing her religious beliefs while finding her actions lawful. An appeals court later overturned that ruling, and the California Supreme Court declined to review the case in May.

Miller, who opened Tastries in 2013, has stated that she does not create baked goods for events or content that conflict with her religious beliefs, including same-sex weddings, divorces, violent imagery, pornography, drug use, or witchcraft.

In a statement reported by Newsweek, Miller said, “My love for Jesus Christ calls me to serve others with joy and compassion, and Tastries has been my way of answering that call for over a decade. I’m asking the Court to end California’s harassment once and for all. All I want is to serve my neighbors as the Gospel of Jesus Christ calls me to, without being forced to create messages that violate my beliefs.”

You May Also Like: Rep. Mary Miller Pushes Ban to Keep Trans Athletes Out of Girls’ Sports

The case bears similarities to that of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Phillips’ favor in 2018, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment.

For the Supreme Court to hear Miller’s case, at least four of the nine justices must vote in favor of granting review and scheduling oral arguments.