Mainstream creativity support design prioritizes compliant AI for seamless writing interactions, but concerns over inappropriate AI reliance highlight the need for designs fostering reflection on balanced AI and non-AI resource use. Theoretically, intentional AI non-compliance, refusals (saying ``no'' to requests), could introduce such reflection through friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions. Practically, refusal content/language characteristics lead to nuanced reactions. However, little research empirically focuses on nuances beyond mandatory ethical/technical constraints, on turning refusals into strategic friction for `innocuous' requests. We address this through a qualitative study with 22 creative writers, exploring reactions to refusals to common requests across writing stages (planning, translating, reviewing). Findings suggest that reflective potential depends on heterogeneous preference alignment along situational (e.g., convergent/divergent thinking phases), cognitive (e.g., domain beliefs), and relational (e.g., AI roles) dimensions. We discuss implications for creativity support, broader issues (e.g., AI addiction), and frictional/seamful AI design (e.g., integrating different compliance levels).