Arizona Supreme Court rules in favor of business in religious freedom case


APP APP AS APP AS THEY APP AS THEY DEVELOP APP AS THEY DEVELOP RIGHT APP AS THEY DEVELOP RIGHT OVER APP AS THEY DEVELOP RIGHT OVER
IN APP AS THEY DEVELOP RIGHT OVER
IN YOUR APP AS THEY DEVELOP RIGHT OVER
IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS AVAILABLE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A
FREE IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A
FREE DOWNLOAD IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A
FREE DOWNLOAD ON IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A
FREE DOWNLOAD ON YOUR IT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR A
FREE DOWNLOAD ON YOUR ANDROID FREE DOWNLOAD ON YOUR ANDROID FREE DOWNLOAD ON YOUR ANDROID
OR FREE DOWNLOAD ON YOUR ANDROID
OR APPLE FREE DOWNLOAD ON YOUR ANDROID
OR APPLE DEVICE. OR APPLE DEVICE. OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OUR OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OUR BIG OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OUR BIG STORY OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OUR BIG STORY AT OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. OR APPLE DEVICE.
>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A
MAJOR>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A
MAJOR RULING>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A
MAJOR RULING IN>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A
MAJOR RULING IN A>>>OUR BIG STORY AT 6:00. A
MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM CASE MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM CASE IN MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA MAJOR RULING IN A RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT
COULD FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT
COULD ECHO FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT
COULD ECHO ACROSS FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT
COULD ECHO ACROSS THE FREEDOM CASE IN ARIZONA THAT
COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY. COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY. COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THE COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THE STATE COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THE STATE SUPREME COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THE STATE SUPREME COURT COULD ECHO ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED THAT A THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED THAT A PHOENIX THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED THAT A PHOENIX BUSINESS RULED THAT A PHOENIX BUSINESS RULED THAT A PHOENIX BUSINESS
THAT RULED THAT A PHOENIX BUSINESS
THAT DOES RULED THAT A PHOENIX BUSINESS
THAT DOES WEDDING RULED THAT A PHOENIX BUSINESS
THAT DOES WEDDING INVITATIONS THAT DOES WEDDING INVITATIONS THAT DOES WEDDING INVITATIONS
CAN THAT DOES WEDDING INVITATIONS
CAN REJECT THAT DOES WEDDING INVITATIONS
CAN REJECT CUSTOMERS THAT DOES WEDDING INVITATIONS
CAN REJECT CUSTOMERS PLANNING CAN REJECT CUSTOMERS PLANNING CAN REJECT CUSTOMERS PLANNING
SAME-SEX CAN REJECT CUSTOMERS PLANNING
SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
AT SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
AT ISSUE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
AT ISSUE WAS SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
AT ISSUE WAS A SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
AT ISSUE WAS A PHOENIX SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
AT ISSUE WAS A PHOENIX LAW AT ISSUE WAS A PHOENIX LAW AT ISSUE WAS A PHOENIX LAW
BANNING AT ISSUE WAS A PHOENIX LAW
BANNING DISCRIMINATION AT ISSUE WAS A PHOENIX LAW
BANNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BANNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BANNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LGBTQ BANNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LGBTQ PEOPLE. LGBTQ PEOPLE. LGBTQ PEOPLE.
>>LGBTQ PEOPLE.
>>GRAHAM LGBTQ PEOPLE.
>>GRAHAM RESNICK LGBTQ PEOPLE.
>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS LGBTQ PEOPLE.
>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED
ON>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED
ON THE>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED
ON THE PHOENIX>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED
ON THE PHOENIX LAW>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED
ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE>>GRAHAM RESNICK HAS REPORTED
ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS
APPROVAL ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS
APPROVAL SIX ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS
APPROVAL SIX YEARS ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS
APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS
APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND ON THE PHOENIX LAW SINCE ITS
APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE
IS APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE
IS BACK APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE
IS BACK WITH APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE
IS BACK WITH US APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE
IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT APPROVAL SIX YEARS AGO AND HE
IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO
BREAK IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO
BREAK IT IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO
BREAK IT DOWN. IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO
BREAK IT DOWN. TOOK IS BACK WITH US TONIGHT TO
BREAK IT DOWN. TOOK THE BREAK IT DOWN. TOOK THE BREAK IT DOWN. TOOK THE
CHRISTIAN BREAK IT DOWN. TOOK THE
CHRISTIAN LEGAL BREAK IT DOWN. TOOK THE
CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION
THAT CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION
THAT SUED CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION
THAT SUED THE CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION
THAT SUED THE CITY CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION
THAT SUED THE CITY OF CHRISTIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION
THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS HAILING THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS HAILING IT THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS HAILING IT AS THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS HAILING IT AS A THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS HAILING IT AS A HUGE THAT SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX
IS HAILING IT AS A HUGE VICTORY IS HAILING IT AS A HUGE VICTORY IS HAILING IT AS A HUGE VICTORY
FOR IS HAILING IT AS A HUGE VICTORY
FOR RELIGIOUS IS HAILING IT AS A HUGE VICTORY
FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
A FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
A CLOSER FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
A CLOSER LOOK FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE RULING A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE RULING A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE RULING
IS A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE RULING
IS VERY A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE RULING
IS VERY VERY A CLOSER LOOK SHOWS THE RULING
IS VERY VERY NARROW. IS VERY VERY NARROW. IS VERY VERY NARROW.
BUT IS VERY VERY NARROW.
BUT ONE IS VERY VERY NARROW.
BUT ONE LEGAL IS VERY VERY NARROW.
BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT IS VERY VERY NARROW.
BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS, BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS, BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS,
WARNS BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS,
WARNS OTHER BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS,
WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS,
WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN BUT ONE LEGAL EXPERT WARMS,
WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE
IT WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE
IT TO WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE
IT TO REFUSE WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE
IT TO REFUSE SERVICE WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE
IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR WARNS OTHER BUSINESSES CAN USE
IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME- IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME- IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME-
SEX IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME-
SEX MARRIAGES.>>IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME-
SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME-
SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME-
SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE ARE IT TO REFUSE SERVICE FOR SAME-
SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE ARE AS SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE ARE AS SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE ARE AS
ARTISTS SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE ARE AS
ARTISTS COMPLETELY SEX MARRIAGES.>>WHO WE ARE AS
ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES
THROUGH ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES
THROUGH IN ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES
THROUGH IN THE ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES
THROUGH IN THE ART ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES
THROUGH IN THE ART WE ARTISTS COMPLETELY COMES
THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE
AND THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE
AND WE THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE
AND WE ARE THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE
AND WE ARE PEOPLE THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE
AND WE ARE PEOPLE OF THROUGH IN THE ART WE CREATE
AND WE ARE PEOPLE OF FACIAL, AND WE ARE PEOPLE OF FACIAL, AND WE ARE PEOPLE OF FACIAL,
FAITH AND WE ARE PEOPLE OF FACIAL,
FAITH AND AND WE ARE PEOPLE OF FACIAL,
FAITH AND CHRISTIANS. FAITH AND CHRISTIANS. FAITH AND CHRISTIANS.
TRIP FAITH AND CHRISTIANS.
TRIP BY FAITH AND CHRISTIANS.
TRIP BY NARROW FAITH AND CHRISTIANS.
TRIP BY NARROW FOR FAITH AND CHRISTIANS.
TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER
MAJORITY TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER
MAJORITY THE TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER
MAJORITY THE SUPREME TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER
MAJORITY THE SUPREME COURT TRIP BY NARROW FOR MINISTER
MAJORITY THE SUPREME COURT IT MAJORITY THE SUPREME COURT IT MAJORITY THE SUPREME COURT IT
GRIEVES MAJORITY THE SUPREME COURT IT
GRIEVES WITH MAJORITY THE SUPREME COURT IT
GRIEVES WITH THEM. GRIEVES WITH THEM. GRIEVES WITH THEM.
RULING GRIEVES WITH THEM.
RULING THEIR GRIEVES WITH THEM.
RULING THEIR RIGHT GRIEVES WITH THEM.
RULING THEIR RIGHT TO GRIEVES WITH THEM.
RULING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE RULING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE RULING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE
EXPRESSION RULING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE
EXPRESSION AND RULING THEIR RIGHT TO FREE
EXPRESSION AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION AND RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM EXPRESSION AND RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM ARE EXPRESSION AND RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED. FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED. FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED.
THE FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED.
THE COURT FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED.
THE COURT SAID FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED.
THE COURT SAID THE FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED.
THE COURT SAID THE CITY FREEDOM ARE INTERTWINED.
THE COURT SAID THE CITY OF THE COURT SAID THE CITY OF THE COURT SAID THE CITY OF
PHOENIX THE COURT SAID THE CITY OF
PHOENIX AND THE COURT SAID THE CITY OF
PHOENIX AND THEIR THE COURT SAID THE CITY OF
PHOENIX AND THEIR LGBTQ PHOENIX AND THEIR LGBTQ PHOENIX AND THEIR LGBTQ
ANTIDISCRIMINATION PHOENIX AND THEIR LGBTQ
ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW PHOENIX AND THEIR LGBTQ
ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T
FORCE ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T
FORCE THEM ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T
FORCE THEM TO ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T
FORCE THEM TO CREATE ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW CAN’T
FORCE THEM TO CREATE CUSTOM FORCE THEM TO CREATE CUSTOM FORCE THEM TO CREATE CUSTOM
INVITATIONS FORCE THEM TO CREATE CUSTOM
INVITATIONS CELEBRATING FORCE THEM TO CREATE CUSTOM
INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME- INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME- INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME-
SEX INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME-
SEX WEDDINGS INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME-
SEX WEDDINGS IN INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME-
SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION INVITATIONS CELEBRATING SAME-
SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION OF SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION OF SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION OF
THEIR SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION OF
THEIR SINCERELY SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION OF
THEIR SINCERELY HELD SEX WEDDINGS IN VIOLATION OF
THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS. BELIEFS. BELIEFS.
REACTION BELIEFS.
REACTION FROM BELIEFS.
REACTION FROM BOTH BELIEFS.
REACTION FROM BOTH SIDES REACTION FROM BOTH SIDES REACTION FROM BOTH SIDES
STARKLY REACTION FROM BOTH SIDES
STARKLY DIFFERENT. STARKLY DIFFERENT. STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>THIS STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>THIS IS STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>THIS IS A STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>THIS IS A WIN STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>THIS IS A WIN FOR STARKLY DIFFERENT.
>>THIS IS A WIN FOR ALL>>THIS IS A WIN FOR ALL>>THIS IS A WIN FOR ALL
CITIZENS>>THIS IS A WIN FOR ALL
CITIZENS OF>>THIS IS A WIN FOR ALL
CITIZENS OF ARIZONA. CITIZENS OF ARIZONA. CITIZENS OF ARIZONA.
>>CITIZENS OF ARIZONA.
>>Reporter: CITIZENS OF ARIZONA.
>>Reporter: AN CITIZENS OF ARIZONA.
>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY CITIZENS OF ARIZONA.
>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT CITIZENS OF ARIZONA.
>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT THE>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT THE>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT THE
CHRISTIAN>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT THE
CHRISTIAN LEGAL>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT THE
CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY>>Reporter: AN ATTORNEY AT THE
CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY FIRM CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY FIRM CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY FIRM
CLAIMS CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY FIRM
CLAIMS A CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY FIRM
CLAIMS A SWEEPING CHRISTIAN LEGAL ADVOCACY FIRM
CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY. CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY. CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY.
THE CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY.
THE MAYOR CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY.
THE MAYOR DECLARING CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY.
THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT CLAIMS A SWEEPING VICTORY.
THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT LGBTQ THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT LGBTQ THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT LGBTQ
CIVIL THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE THE MAYOR DECLARING THAT LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE WAS CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE WAS CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE WAS
STILL CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE WAS
STILL STANDING. STILL STANDING. STILL STANDING.
>>STILL STANDING.
>>WE STILL STANDING.
>>WE ARE STILL STANDING.
>>WE ARE GLAD STILL STANDING.
>>WE ARE GLAD IT STILL STANDING.
>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL STANDING.
>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL STILL STANDING.
>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE
LAW>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE
LAW OF>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE
LAW OF THE>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE
LAW OF THE LAND>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE
LAW OF THE LAND IN>>WE ARE GLAD IT IS STILL THE
LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX. LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX. LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX.
TOOK LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX.
TOOK THE LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX.
TOOK THE JUSTICES LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX.
TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LAW OF THE LAND IN PHOENIX.
TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LIMITS TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LIMITS TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LIMITS
THE TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LIMITS
THE POTENTIAL TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LIMITS
THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TOOK THE JUSTICES RULING LIMITS
THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND
IMPLIES THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND
IMPLIES TO THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND
IMPLIES TO JUST THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND
IMPLIES TO JUST ONE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND
IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS, IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS, IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS,
THE IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS,
THE STUDIO, IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS,
THE STUDIO, THE IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS,
THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS IMPLIES TO JUST ONE BUSINESS,
THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN
REFUSE THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN
REFUSE TO THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN
REFUSE TO SELL THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN
REFUSE TO SELL JUST THE STUDIO, THE OWNERS CAN
REFUSE TO SELL JUST ONE REFUSE TO SELL JUST ONE REFUSE TO SELL JUST ONE
PRODUCT, REFUSE TO SELL JUST ONE
PRODUCT, CUSTOM REFUSE TO SELL JUST ONE
PRODUCT, CUSTOM INVITATIONS REFUSE TO SELL JUST ONE
PRODUCT, CUSTOM INVITATIONS FOR PRODUCT, CUSTOM INVITATIONS FOR PRODUCT, CUSTOM INVITATIONS FOR
SAME-SEX PRODUCT, CUSTOM INVITATIONS FOR
SAME-SEX WEDDINGS. SAME-SEX WEDDINGS. SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>IT SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>IT IS SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>IT IS VERY SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>IT IS VERY VERY SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY SAME-SEX WEDDINGS.
>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT GOES>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT GOES OUT>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT GOES OUT OF>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT GOES OUT OF IT>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY>>IT IS VERY VERY VERY NARROW
AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO
SAY AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO
SAY HOW AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO
SAY HOW NARROW AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO
SAY HOW NARROW IT AND IT GOES OUT OF IT WAY TO
SAY HOW NARROW IT IS. SAY HOW NARROW IT IS. SAY HOW NARROW IT IS.
TROPIC SAY HOW NARROW IT IS.
TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL SAY HOW NARROW IT IS.
TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
EXPERT TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
EXPERT PAUL TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
EXPERT PAUL BENDER TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID TROPIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE
RULING EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE
RULING MIGHT EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE
RULING MIGHT ALSO EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE
RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE
RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A EXPERT PAUL BENDER SAID THE
RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A BAKER RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A BAKER RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A BAKER
TO RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A BAKER
TO REJECT RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A BAKER
TO REJECT THE RULING MIGHT ALSO ALLOW A BAKER
TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX
COUPLE.>>TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX
COUPLE.>>IF TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX
COUPLE.>>IF THE TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX
COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX
COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER TO REJECT THE SAME-SEX
COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS
ASKED COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS
ASKED TO COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS
ASKED TO DO COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS
ASKED TO DO A COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS
ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM COUPLE.>>IF THE CAKE BAKER IS
ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING
CAKE ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING
CAKE FOR ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING
CAKE FOR A ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING
CAKE FOR A LGBTQ ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING
CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, ASKED TO DO A CUSTOM WEDDING
CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES, CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES, CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I THINK CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I THINK HE CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I THINK HE COULD CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I THINK HE COULD RELY CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I THINK HE COULD RELY ON CAKE FOR A LGBTQ WEDDING, YES,
I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE
DECISION I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE
DECISION AND I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE
DECISION AND SO I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE
DECISION AND SO YOU I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE
DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T I THINK HE COULD RELY ON THE
DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE
THE DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE
THE PHOENIX DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE
THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE
THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO DECISION AND SO YOU CAN’T USE
THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO FORCE THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO FORCE THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO FORCE
YOU THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO FORCE
YOU TO THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO FORCE
YOU TO DO THE PHOENIX ORDINANCE TO FORCE
YOU TO DO IT. YOU TO DO IT. YOU TO DO IT.
>>YOU TO DO IT.
>>Reporter: YOU TO DO IT.
>>Reporter: BRENDAN YOU TO DO IT.
>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS ONE>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS ONE OF>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS ONE OF THE>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF>>Reporter: BRENDAN MAHONEY
WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THIS WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THIS WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THIS
ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE.
HE ORDINANCE.
HE IS ORDINANCE.
HE IS NOT ORDINANCE.
HE IS NOT TOO ORDINANCE.
HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>ORDINANCE.
HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE
HAS HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE
HAS BEEN HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE
HAS BEEN NO HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE
HAS BEEN NO HISTORY HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE
HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF HE IS NOT TOO WORRIED.>>THERE
HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX
BUSINESSES HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX
BUSINESSES ON HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX
BUSINESSES ON THE HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX
BUSINESSES ON THE RAMPAGE HAS BEEN NO HISTORY OF PHOENIX
BUSINESSES ON THE RAMPAGE TO BUSINESSES ON THE RAMPAGE TO BUSINESSES ON THE RAMPAGE TO
START BUSINESSES ON THE RAMPAGE TO
START DISCRIMINATING BUSINESSES ON THE RAMPAGE TO
START DISCRIMINATING AGAINST START DISCRIMINATING AGAINST START DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
CUSTOMERS. CUSTOMERS. CUSTOMERS.
AND CUSTOMERS.
AND I CUSTOMERS.
AND I DON’T CUSTOMERS.
AND I DON’T THINK CUSTOMERS.
AND I DON’T THINK THIS CUSTOMERS.
AND I DON’T THINK THIS WILL AND I DON’T THINK THIS WILL AND I DON’T THINK THIS WILL
CHANGE AND I DON’T THINK THIS WILL
CHANGE THAT.>>AND I DON’T THINK THIS WILL
CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: AND I DON’T THINK THIS WILL
CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: 12 CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: 12 CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: 12
NEWS CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: 12
NEWS OBTAIN CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: 12
NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC CHANGE THAT.>>Reporter: 12
NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS
SHOWING NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS
SHOWING JUST NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS
SHOWING JUST SEVEN NEWS OBTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS
SHOWING JUST SEVEN COMPLAINTS SHOWING JUST SEVEN COMPLAINTS SHOWING JUST SEVEN COMPLAINTS
HAVE SHOWING JUST SEVEN COMPLAINTS
HAVE BEEN SHOWING JUST SEVEN COMPLAINTS
HAVE BEEN FILED SHOWING JUST SEVEN COMPLAINTS
HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST
BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST
BUSINESSES SINCE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST
BUSINESSES SINCE THE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST
BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ
CIVIL BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TOOK BUSINESSES SINCE THE LGBTQ
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TOOK EFFECT CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TOOK EFFECT CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TOOK EFFECT
SIX CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TOOK EFFECT
SIX YEARS CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TOOK EFFECT
SIX YEARS AGO. SIX YEARS AGO. SIX YEARS AGO.
MOST SIX YEARS AGO.
MOST RESULTED SIX YEARS AGO.
MOST RESULTED IN SIX YEARS AGO.
MOST RESULTED IN NO SIX YEARS AGO.
MOST RESULTED IN NO ACTION, SIX YEARS AGO.
MOST RESULTED IN NO ACTION, AND

3 thoughts on “Arizona Supreme Court rules in favor of business in religious freedom case

  • A correct and just ruling. This small business was targeted by the aggressive, "LGBTQ-whatever" agenda because it obviously – look at their logo! – is a Christian shop. This couple would have had no problem selecting another business to provide the service they wanted, but wanted to make an issue and invoke Phoenix's law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *