Cake kerfuffle

Aaaannd now a Tennessee bakery doesn’t wanna make a gay wedding cake either (because Jesus)

Brandi Ray
Brandi Ray

Susie’s Sweets, a bakery in Dickson County, Tennessee (an area just west of Nashville), has reportedly refused to make a cake for a female same-sex couple’s wedding.

The bakery’s owner Susie Dennison, wrote to Brandi Ray after Ray appeared in her shop and requested a cake for her same-sex wedding. Dennison later wrote Ray on Facebook, stating:

“I really enjoyed our time together and I truly wish you the best but after realizing that your union will be of the same sex, I cannot with my spiritual conviction and beliefs, do your cake! I want you to know in saying that, I do love you in The Lord! Had I known before you left, I would have said something then!”

Ray responded, “I’m sorry you feel that way. Have a good night.”

On a public Facebook post mentioning Dennison’s refusal, Ray says she mentioned her fiancée’s female name, Michele Schmidt, several times when she and Dennison met in person.

Related: Wedding videographer turns away lesbian couple because Jesus disapproves… or something

Ray hasn’t announced whether she plans on taking any sort of legal action against the bakery, but the case is very similar to two other high-profile cases of anti-gay discrimination by wedding vendors. Both vendors claimed they couldn’t offer goods for a same-sex wedding because it would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The most famous, of course, is the Masterpiece Cakeshop case which won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory in June 2018 when the Justices found evidence of anti-religious bias during hearings on the matter held by Colorado’s civil rights commission.

The second, lesser-known case involves Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts who, in 2013, denied a floral arrangement for a male same-sex couple’s wedding. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court court asked the Washington State Supreme Court to determine whether the state of Washington expressed any anti-religious sentiment whatsoever when handling the florist’s case. No further ruling has been issued in that case.