"Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it"

[Pb]

The Arizona Attorney General has announced that she will be defying the Supreme Court's recent religious freedom ruling.  The state will continue to force business owners to promote homosexuality if their customers demand it.

https://news.yahoo.com/arizona-attorney-general-kris-mayes-140030478.html

“While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor — the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is ‘profoundly wrong.’ ”

 Of course people have the right do refuse to do business with people they don't want to... and for any reason, good bad or indifferent... in this case, it involves religious liberty.  In fact, all anti-discrimination laws that bind private business (Civil Rights Act of 1964 for example) are blatant violations of freedom of association (which is somewhat more obscure than the obvious violation of the 1st Amendment in this case.)

The left doesn't give a damn about the rule of law, unless the law happens to support leftism.

I wonder what, if anything, is going to happen to the law in AZ?

[dogmush]

I feel like no one on the internet read that decision.

Possibly not even Justice Sotomayor.

It did not give businesses the right to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.

That said I welcome the AZ AG into the fight against ever increasing Federal power grabs, and am glad she finally sees the light on the need for strong states rights to push back against the creeping spread of the Fed.  Better late than never Ms. Mayes.

[Perd Hapley]

One might hope that Arizona bakeries are flooded with requests for cakes bearing the text of Leviticus 20.13.

[Pb]

It did not give businesses the right to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.

Unfortunately.

The court needs to return the right of private citizens to discriminate for any reason.  Or no reason.

[JTHunter]

Pb - clarify which ruling you're talking about as there were two.
One was the website designer who felt the CO law "forcing" her to make a gay marriage website violated her 1st Amendment rights.
The second was about an employee who wanted off work on Sundays and was denied by the employer.  I think this is the one pertinent to your original post.  Correct? 

[JN01]

Cool. I guess red states can ignore the Obergefell decision and ban gay marriages again.

[RoadKingLarry]

They made their ruling, now let's see them enforce it.

[dogmush]

Pb - clarify which ruling you're talking about as there were two.
One was the website designer who felt the CO law "forcing" her to make a gay marriage website violated her 1st Amendment rights.
The second was about an employee who wanted off work on Sundays and was denied by the employer.  I think this is the one pertinent to your original post.  Correct? 

We're discussing 303 Creative v. Elenis here.

[Pb]

Yes.