Poll of the Day > Anti-Gay Tramps Win Case and are ALLOWED to REFUSE Business to GAY PEOPLE!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the owners of a Phoenix Calligraphy business who REFUSED to create wedding invitations for GAY COUPLES citing their CHRISTIAN BELIEFS!!

In a narrow 4-3 opinion, the highest court said that Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka, the owners of Brush & Nib Studio cannot be compelled to create custom invitations under a Phoenix City Ordinance protecting members of the LGBTQ from discrimination!!

Justice Andrew Gould said "The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person's home or church or private conversations with like minded friends and family. These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beleifs in public. This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings and art that express a person's sincere religious beliefs"

They overturned multiple rulings by lower courts as Justice Gould says the heifers beliefs on same sex marriage is old fashioned but it was their guaranteed right as an american to refuse service to anybody they please"

Phoenix Mayor, Kate Gallego said "Today's decision is not a win, but it is not a loss. It means will continue to debate over equality in this community"

But Brianna Westbrook, the VP of the Arizona Democratic Party expressed her concerns over the ruling and it's possible repercussions tweeting it's opening the door to owners to outright discriminate against LGBTQ people.

Cold Hearted Heifers, Koski and Duka met at a Bible study who are devout Christians and have opened up their business in 2016 and wern't asked to do business with gay people until recently and said it was unfair for them to be forced to create art for people they see as an AFFRONT to GOD.

Do you think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to Gay People??

Anti-Gay Tramps -








---

Its messed up and I dont agree with it, but in the USA a business does legally have the right to refuse service to anyone.
---

Full Throttle posted...

it was their guaranteed right as an american to refuse service to anybody they please

/topic.

as much as this is a shitty situation, businesses have the right to refuse service for literally any reason they want.
---

They can do what they want... and the bad publicity can crush them and their Christian values like impotent worms they are.
---

It's one thing to refuse service to someone just because of who they are. It's another thing to refuse service for something you don't support. It's the cake thing all over again. That bakery didn't refuse service to the couple because they were gay. They just didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding reception.

Is it petty? Kind of. But if I were the person being denied service, I'd just say fuck off, give them bad reviews, tell other people to give them bad reviews and take my business elsewhere.

Wait till people use this as an excuse to refuse to do work for people of color lmfao
---

Full Throttle posted...

said it was unfair for them to be forced to create art for people they see as an AFFRONT to GOD.

Blondie, those eyebrows are an affront to god.
---

If they refused to make wedding invitations because I was gay, I probably wouldnt want to do business with them, anyway.

Like Shadowbird_RH said, leave them a bad review and let the bad publicity crush them. Some people will support then because of this, and others wont. I guess its good they sued. Its show others who they are, I guess.

sodium-chloride posted...

It's one thing to refuse service to someone just because of who they are. It's another thing to refuse service for something you don't support. It's the cake thing all over again. That bakery didn't refuse service to the couple because they were gay. They just didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding reception.

Is it petty? Kind of. But if I were the person being denied service, I'd just say fuck off, give them bad reviews, tell other people to give them bad reviews and take my business elsewhere.

Though, I heard some companies can delete certain reviews, so...

A co-worker of mine said him and his brother wrote a bad review for one of those pest control companies that sprayed. They removed his, but couldnt remove his brothers as his brothers standing with Google was good or something...
---

While they are dicks for doing it... I support the right to refuse service for any arbitrary reason.
---

They can refuse service to them, they just cant say thats why.
---

Hiding behind religion is kind of a bitch move but it's their right to do it.
---

Full Throttle posted...

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the owners of a Phoenix Calligraphy business who REFUSED to create wedding invitations for GAY COUPLES citing their CHRISTIAN BELIEFS!!

First it's no gay wedding cakes, now it's no gay wedding invitations. What's next? No gay wedding registries?!

Full Throttle posted...

In a narrow 4-3 opinion,

With only 7 people, a lot of decisions will be 4-3. >_>

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to Gay People??

Well, it's not that they're refusing service to gay people, they're refusing service for gay weddings. If a gay person wanted to buy wedding invites to help the preparations so their straight brother/son/whatever could wed a woman, the business wouldn't have any problem with that.

Otherwise, I've always been of the opinion that unless a business is involved in immediate life-saving care like a hospital, people can just go somewhere else. A purchase is supposed to be an agreement between company and consumer. If a business owner wanted to turn away a cop, that'd be their prerogative as well(although a rank&file employee can't decide that for the company, and many who have tried to do that have rightfully been fired for violating their company's policy)

Keebs05 posted...

Hiding behind religion is kind of a bitch move but it's their right to do it.

It's not "hiding behind religion," it's the reason motivating their decision.
---

So what's the situation federally? Or is it just a matter of state lottery?
---

As someone who grew up in a Southern Baptist church that was all fire and brimstone, I don't recall anyone ever saying "Our religion says you can't interact with gays". I mean they hated gays, but they never attempted to use religion as their excuse.

Sounds about Christian.

BlackScythe0 posted...

As someone who grew up in a Southern Baptist church that was all fire and brimstone, I don't recall anyone ever saying "Our religion says you can't interact with gays". I mean they hated gays, but they never attempted to use religion as their excuse.

You can pick and choose passages from the bible to justify anything. One passage says that a man who lies with another man should be put to death.
---

Freedom of association. They have every right.

Just as we have every right to not do business with them.

Can they? Well yeah, a business doesn't have to serve any one the owner or workers don't want to.

Should they be allowed to? I think not.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

You can pick and choose passages from the bible to justify anything.

That's a common misconception about the Bible. Technically, yes, you can cherry-pick just about any passage from God's word and use it for whatever ends you'd like to justify. See: The Crusades.

That doesn't make your particular interpretation of the scripture a fact. That may not even support what you're trying to say at all.

The important thing is the read the entire Bible. That way you can balance parts of what others say against other sections. So it all forms a cohesive whole. There are multitudes of contexts and other specific elements which provide the entire picture for any particular passage. Think about the Bible as a woven tapestry of images that all serves to depict one grand illustration.

Regardless, the abuse which other purport against God's word does not invalidate the truth it contains. It merely discredits the person who is not interpreting it correctly.

I guess what Im trying to say is: Test what anyone says about God against the full text of scripture. See if what they say lines up with everything else. If it doesn't, then that person should not be paid attention to.

This applies to everyone. Including myself.
---

Such as it is with freedom of speech, they are free to make this decision but not free from the consequences of said decision.
---

I don't agree with their actions, but I don't think someone should lose their rights because they're a business owner instead of a customer.

Laws have to treat everyone equally.
---

Businesses could technically already do this, right? I thought businesses could refuse anyone already...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Businesses could technically already do this, right? I thought businesses could refuse anyone already...

Yeah, but like I said in my post, the question isn't if the can do it, it's if they should be able to do it.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Businesses could technically already do this, right? I thought businesses could refuse anyone already...

Yeah, but like I said in my post, the question isn't if the can do it, it's if they should be able to do it.

That becomes harder to answer... Because I dont people should be able to deny people because where does it stop. Will people be able to deny people food from the supermarket based on asexual orientation, race, or political stance to the point where they starve to death? But, at the same time, some people are jerks who act like jerks and you should be able to kick them out... So, Idk...
---

JCvgluvr posted...

The important thing is the read the entire Bible. That way you can balance parts of what others say against other sections. So it all forms a cohesive whole. There are multitudes of contexts and other specific elements which provide the entire picture for any particular passage. Think about the Bible as a woven tapestry of images that all serves to depict one grand illustration.

In other words form your own exegesis by picking and choosing the passages which best reflect your biases. The bible is so full of ambiguities I doubt there can be a cohesive whole.
---

LinkPizza posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Businesses could technically already do this, right? I thought businesses could refuse anyone already...

Yeah, but like I said in my post, the question isn't if the can do it, it's if they should be able to do it.

That becomes harder to answer... Because I dont people should be able to deny people because where does it stop. Will people be able to deny people food from the supermarket based on asexual orientation, race, or political stance to the point where they starve to death? But, at the same time, some people are jerks who act like jerks and you should be able to kick them out... So, Idk...

Honestly, I feel like "reserve the right to refuse service" isn't supposed to be like how it is. Because then people can refuse service to people based on things that turn it into discrimination. I feel like it's meant to be for customers who are rude or something of that nature.
---

It's a dick move to refuse to sell something to someone because they're gay but I think it's also kind of a dick move to force a religious person to make art that goes against their beliefs. Just go to someone else that will

They can refuse service for anyone they like. But if they explicitly say its because you are gay? No, that's not okay. The business can give refuse service and give no reason for why. If they choose to go out of their way to do so, then that's a problem.
---

My business, my choice.

Oops, guess the strong, independent wahmynz were on to something.
---

I personally feel if it's a thing against their religion such as doing things for weddings, sure. But if they want to buy like a cup of noodles or a jewelry then absolutely not. Their is a point to where people are crossing the religion line and then just being straight up prejudice. I feel this is a straight up prejudice thing to do. Just because they are gay you cant make art? Your not supporting their life style but you can still be respectful. Love thy neighbor.
---

It's rude to go into an establishment, especially if you know their beliefs, and demand to have something done that goes against those beliefs. Just like it would be rude to go into a business run by gay people and ask them to make some art for you that's pro christian, homophobic rhetoric

If you want to be a well renowned, straights only bakery, that should be the name of your business, "Straights only cakes and bakes".

That same mentality was really useful when it was "whites only". (Italics are sarcasm)
---

kind9 posted...

JCvgluvr posted...

The important thing is the read the entire Bible. That way you can balance parts of what others say against other sections. So it all forms a cohesive whole. There are multitudes of contexts and other specific elements which provide the entire picture for any particular passage. Think about the Bible as a woven tapestry of images that all serves to depict one grand illustration.

In other words form your own exegesis by picking and choosing the passages which best reflect your biases. The bible is so full of ambiguities I doubt there can be a cohesive whole.

Have you read the entirety of the Bible? It isn't really possible to deny the connected nature of the entire book, once you have done so.

For instance, a well-known statistic explains that there were over 300 prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ. All of which were fulfilled. Just google it. Fascinating stuff!
---

I don't support what they did but I also don't support the government forcing people to do business with people they don't want to fo business with

Imagine if you started a business and that dickhead alex you know tries to go there? You should be able to tell that dickhead alex to gtfo of your business
---

PK_Spam posted...

Wait till people use this as an excuse to refuse to do work for people of color lmfao

This is my concern as well since it's a slippery slope between "I don't support gays; so won't do this" to "I won't bake a cake or this for people because (take your pick of reasons between skin color, religion, etc.). Just because you can do a thing, a wise man once said, doesn't mean that you should do or not do a thing. This is like the story of the guy that goes with his wife to the Lexus dealership to look at a car only to have the sales person tell him that they aren't going to even let him and his wife look at it (which sounds as if the car was a lure to draw people into the dealership). The guy and his wife wondered afterward if the sales person was trying to tell them that either 1) the car was in such bad condition that they didn't want anyone to look at it or 2)their money, which is as green as everyone else's, wasn't good enough.

JCvgluvr posted...

For instance, a well-known statistic explains that there were over 300 prophecies pertaining to Jesus Christ. All of which were fulfilled. Just google it. Fascinating stuff!

It's as though it was written after his death.
---

Aaantlion posted...

unless a business is involved in immediate life-saving care like a hospital, people can just go somewhere else.

That's not necessarily true. Obviously wedding invitations don't come anywhere close to providing a necessity, but there are plenty of other services that people do need on a day-to-day basis, for which there may not be another viable option. If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Aaantlion posted...

It's not "hiding behind religion," it's the reason motivating their decision.

It's absolutely hiding behind religion. Saying "my religion says so" is nothing more than an excuse to get out of having to form a real argument and commit to the position at an intellectual level. It's a lazy emotional appeal at best.
---

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?
---

adjl posted...

It's absolutely hiding behind religion. Saying "my religion says so" is nothing more than an excuse to get out of having to form a real argument and commit to the position at an intellectual level. It's a lazy emotional appeal at best.

Growing up in the bible belt, I know that it's not necessarily an excuse. There are legitimately tons of people who think doing something like this would make them a sinner

Probably wouldnt even be hearing about this in the news if it was a muslim business. You're only supposed to force christians to do people's bidding

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?

Depends. If the next nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?

Depends. If the net nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...

It rather ruins the point of running a shop in a limited area though. Why run a business in buttfuck nowhere when a more desirable location would get more foot traffic?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?

Depends. If the net nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...

It rather ruins the point of running a shop in a limited area though. Why run a business in buttfuck nowhere when a more desirable location would get more foot traffic?

Because the people in Buttfuck nowhere still need food, if that's what you're asking...
---

This world would be a more friendly and sometimes intelligent place without religion.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?

Depends. If the net nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...

It rather ruins the point of running a shop in a limited area though. Why run a business in buttfuck nowhere when a more desirable location would get more foot traffic?

Because the people in Buttfuck nowhere still need food, if that's what you're asking...

They're not legally obliged to run a grocery though. If they can't choose their clientele, why wouldn't they just leave and make buttfuck nowhere a ghost town with no food supplies? And if somebody can just replace them, why can't this other business that will serve this clientele serve as competition?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Depends. If the next nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...

Even though I think this would probably never happen to someone in this day and age, it could in theory and I think in that case we should have stipulations where you cant legally refuse service. But in the case of something like wedding invitations, I believe honoring someone's religious beliefs shouldnt be a big deal. It's different to force someone to sell something to protected classes than it is to force someone to make something for them. One sounds completely reasonable and humanitarian while the other sounds pretty fascist

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

If you've got the only grocery store in an area refusing to serve a certain group of people, for example, that group becomes disadvantaged because they need to travel further to get their food.

Should businesses be obligated to give all people equal advantage?

Depends. If the net nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...

It rather ruins the point of running a shop in a limited area though. Why run a business in buttfuck nowhere when a more desirable location would get more foot traffic?

Because the people in Buttfuck nowhere still need food, if that's what you're asking...

They're not legally obliged to run a grocery though. If they can't choose their clientele, why wouldn't they just leave and make buttfuck nowhere a ghost town with no food supplies? And if somebody can just replace them, why can't this other business that will serve this clientele serve as competition?

It depends on certain things. If they have the only grocery store, then I think they should serve everyone equally. If someone wants to run a competing store because the first one does sell to a certain group of people, they should as they would most likely get those customers, plus others who don't like how the first store did business. The problem is if anyone would want to open another store there. Or if they could...
---

OhhhJa posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Depends. If the next nearest grocery store is like an hour away, then they probably should...

Even though I think this would probably never happen to someone in this day and age, it could in theory and I think in that case we should have stipulations where you cant legally refuse service. But in the case of something like wedding invitations, I believe honoring someone's religious beliefs shouldnt be a big deal. It's different to force someone to sell something to protected classes than it is to force someone to make something for them. One sounds completely reasonable and humanitarian while the other sounds pretty fascist

I wouldn't say to force someone for something like wedding invitations. And to be honest, I probably wouldn't want to give a company like that money. I'd rather see them go out of business rather than helping their business...

But for food, like a grocery store, or other needs, I don't think they should... unless there is somewhere close by. Or close enough. Like you said, a stipulation would be good...
---

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is if anyone would want to open another store there. Or if they could...

That's the issue. Is it right to force them to serve everyone equally or not at all if it risks leaving everybody without essential supplies? Is it ethical to effectively force everybody to go down with the ship?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is if anyone would want to open another store there. Or if they could...

That's the issue. Is it right to force them to serve everyone equally or not at all if it risks leaving everybody without essential supplies? Is it ethical to effectively force everybody to go down with the ship?

Idk know what you're saying. If they are the only store around, I don't think they should be allowed to pick and choose customers. That's what I was trying to say from the beginning. If you want to argue about whatever it is you want to argue about, do it with someone else. I've said what I wanted to say. Stop dragging this out. If you don't agree, just say that. I don't feel like wasting time with this useless back and forth thing you always do for no reason...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Idk know what you're saying.

I'm saying that if you make them, they still won't do help, they'll just stop operating and it'll hurt everyone. I'd rather some people got something than everybody gets nothing.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Idk know what you're saying.

I'm saying that if you make them, they still won't do help, they'll just stop operating and it'll hurt everyone. I'd rather some people got something than everybody gets nothing.

Well, maybe they should stop operating. If anything, it's usually not the store unless it's a mom and pop shop. If it was a chain, they would replace management. And then make sure everyone in the area got food. If it was a mom and pop shop that shut down, It would probably make it easier to open a spot. Why should a certain set of people starve because the store won't serve them? You could probably get news coverage for that. And some chain would probably go out there and build a store quick to help or "help". Especially if they realized they wouldn't have competition...
---