Readers React: Hollywood shouldn’t have been in Georgia in the first place

To the editor: As a native of Los Angeles with deep roots in Hollywood, I would propose that those who take their production dollars to Georgia (and New York for that matter) are complicit in bastardizing the very fabric of what made the “Hollywood product” desirable in the first place. (“Hollywood vs. Georgia boils down to values,” and “4 battlegrounds in ‘religious liberty,’” March 27)

Let Georgia have its peaches. Let New York have Madison Avenue and Wall Street. You should not need small-minded Southerners to motivate you.

Los Angeles is the movie/TV industry. Do it here or shame on you.

Judy Zimring Pomerantz, Marina Del Rey

::

To the editor: You really have to wonder about the intelligence of a state that has worked for years to draw entertainment industries, only to pass a nasty piece of intolerance shrouded in a protective mist of religion.

State Sen. Joshua McKoon was opposed to the threatened Hollywood boycott but also in favor of the bill designed to, as your article says, “protect faith-based institutions from providing services, such as performing gay marriages, contrary to their beliefs.”

The state legislature is pandering to intolerant, bigoted constituents, utterly ignoring the reality that Georgia is enjoying a reputation as the “Hollywood of the South.”

What’s it going to be, Georgia? Success, profit and a place in American entertainment, or the alternative — a hate-filled place full of bigots who’d rather thump Bibles than see their state profit from an industry that is full of creative, unconventional people, some of whom are gay, or of color?

Barb Graham, San Diego

::

To the editor: Whoa! This is not “Hollywood versus Georgia.” This is simply business as usual.

The Times has flogged this story with phrases such as “conservative and liberal,” “anti-gay” and “values of faith versus diversity.”

But the legislation is not a “Gay Wedding Cake” bill. It proposes protections for faith-based organizations and individuals who are authorized to solemnize marriage ceremonies.

The entertainment industry doesn’t like the bill. That’s enough for The Times to write a piece backing the arrogant Hollywood power play.

Lawrence Lacombe, Los Angeles

::

To the editor: The terms being used are misleading.

These initiatives and laws have one purpose and one purpose only: to openly discriminate against those the backers dislike.

By hijacking terms such as “freedom” and “liberty,” the supporters are attempting to portray themselves as the victims. The nomenclature should be defined for what it really is: hate-based legislation.

Unless the public wakes up to the threat posed by today’s religious medievalists, they will find themselves as the next targets.

Jon Nelson, Panorama City, Calif.

::

To the editor: I am very happy to see the entertainment industry taking a stand against discrimination, but it hardly boils down to “values” on either side.

Unless you consider bullying a “value,” then a majority discriminating against a minority is not about values — and the fact that they might balk only because of the potential economic impact supports that.

If the studios truly want to take a stand for values, then stop doing business in countries where censors ban showing same-sex relationships on TV or which outlaw spreading of “gay propaganda.”

Rob Aft, Rancho Park, Calif.

::

To the editor: McKoon, the Georgia state senator, cites a case in which a cross-country athlete was disqualified for wearing a headband that included a Scripture reference as an example of harassment of people of faith.

My research indicates he was disqualified for violating a rule requiring only “unadorned” headbands.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume this runner was disqualified because of the Bible scripture.

How would a law allowing the discrimination of bisexuals, gays and transgender people prevent discrimination against this runner in a future race?

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook