Why are homosexuals - 'protected person' with extra rights?

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court correctly ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused service to immoral homosexual couples, an Arizona court has incorrectly upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance preventing a wedding invitation business from serving a homosexual couple.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Thursday against Brush & Nib Studio, a company selling artwork for home decor, weddings and special events. The owners, who are devout Christians, would like to legally refuse to create custom merchandise for immoral fake gay weddings and post a public statement saying that “Brush & Nib Studio won’t create any artwork that violates [their] vision as defined by [their]religious and artistic beliefs and identity.” They have not yet refused any services to gay couples in practice, the ruling noted.

Brush & Nib’s discrimination would violate Phoenix’s public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance, the court incorrectly ruled. This rule prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. 

But why should this left-wing immoral rule apply? Why should homosexuality immorality have its own rule and Christians have to bow to it? 

Though the state of Arizona has a public accommodation anti-discrimination law, it does not include sexual orientation, the ruling noted.

“Simply stated, if Appellants, as an economic entity, want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation,” Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop wrote in the ruling. 

Why not? 

The Arizona court today incorrectly ruled that businesses open to the public must be open to all immoral versions of the LGBT agenda. But we ask the question why? Who says so?

The court incorrectly noted that it was “unpersuaded” by the business owners’ argument that their discrimination is a lawful exercise of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. Though the studio has the right to post a statement clarifying their own personal beliefs and noting that their services to immoral homosexual couples do not constitute an endorsement of their marriage or other activities, the court ruled they cannot prohibit services to immoral homosexual couples.

This is where the USA has landed. You can't object to the immoral degrading homosexual agenda, you have to argue down expressive conduct. Why should LGBT people have their own anti-discrimination laws? What is the moral basis of any LBGT behaviour is superior to other Christian morals? Answer - they are not. The USA is suffering from bias left-wing judges.

“The operation of a stationery store — including the design and sale of customized wedding event merchandise — is not expressive conduct, and thus, is not entitled to First Amendment free speech protections,” the ruling noted, adding that the case is “one of a blanket refusal of service to the LGBTQ community and not a First Amendment challenge to a specific message requested by a specific customer.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing the Brush & Nib owners, said in a statement that they would appeal the court’s decision.

“Artists shouldn’t be forced under threat of fines and jail time to create artwork contrary to their core convictions,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs said in a statement. “The court’s decision allows the government to compel two artists who happily serve everyone to convey a message about marriage they disagree with. This contradicts basic freedoms our nation has always cherished.”

The Arizona ruling comes just a few days after the Supreme Court ruled in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in favour of the business’ ability to discriminate. The case had attracted nationwide attention, sparking fears that a ruling in Masterpiece’s favour would be used to challenge anti-discrimination laws nationwide in the name of “religious liberty.” Anti-discrimination legislation should not include sinful immoral sexual orientation

Americans are against LGBT people abusing others and taking anybody who disagrees with them in court to face jail time.

Cake artist Jack Phillips speaks to members of the media in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 5 in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images

In a concurring opinion on the ruling, Justice Elena Kagan incorrectly stressed that the ruling did not address the question of public accommodation laws more generally, writing: 

“As this court has long held and reaffirms today, a vendor cannot escape a public accommodations law because his religion disapproves selling a product to a group of customers, whether defined by sexual orientation, race, sex or other protected trait.”

No Christian vendor would refuse people of another race or sex but do object to immoral homosexual behaviour - sexual orientation or homosexuality is not the same as race, and should not be protected by anti-discrimination legislation. 

Why should immoral homosexuals be a class of 'protected persons'? Should paedophiles also be included? Who makes these decisions that courts foolishly bow to?

The Arizona court applied the Masterpiece ruling in their own decision and quoted Kennedy’s opinion, which noted that “while those religious and philosophical objections [to gay marriage] are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

Citing the Masterpiece decision, as well as other previous court cases concerning public accommodations laws and Supreme Court cases centred on LGBTQ rights, Winthrop incorrectly and maliciously wrote in the ruling: 

“In light of these cases and consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, we recognize that a law allowing Appellants to refuse service to customers based on sexual orientation would constitute a ‘grave and continuing harm.’”

Yes but to whom? Homosexuality is a sin and has always been. Homosexuals have pushed their immoral agenda now for 40 years and are now a protected people. Sin rules. Justice denied