Letters to the Editor: I’m gay and don’t want to patronize bigots. Thanks, Supreme Court
To the editor: I wonder if the LGBTQ+ community realizes that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of a website designer who didn’t want to create wedding sites for gay couples can work in our favor as well. (“How the ripple effect of the Supreme Court’s 303 Creative decision could swamp civil rights,” Opinion, July 12)
As a gay man, I am always concerned if the businesses where I spend my money are supportive of my community. Now that the bigots and religious extremists can reject my business due to who I am, I can know who they are and avoid them as well.
Unfortunately, this ruling also adds to the ongoing division of American people, which I am concerned will lead to the end of this country as we know it.
R. Anthony Foster, Oceanside
..
To the editor: Why isn’t it my right as a business owner to choose not to sell to someone? As a private business owner, I should be allowed to deal — or not — with whom I please.
If I run a publicly owned company, then perhaps I ought to be working under more regulations. Perhaps there are industries that should have special rules — such as real estate and financial services — to try to level playing field.
But seriously, who wants to buy a wedding cake or bouquet or rent a tuxedo from a person who doesn’t want to do business with them?
And by the way, what kind of “discrimination” is there other than that based on personal beliefs? If a private business owner chooses not to serve a potential customer, that choice will always hinge on some personal belief. Maybe I don’t like a customer wearing white after Memorial Day.
Mark Driskill, Long Beach
..
To the editor: How to explain the, well, biblical deluge of recent Supreme Court decisions breaching our democracy’s venerable church-state wall?
Consider how Christian conservatives lament their steadily fading influence. Over the last 50 years, according to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Americans who identify as Christian has dropped from 90% to 64%.
With the high court’s conservative Christians forming a super-majority since 2020, they have eagerly taken on a wide variety of dubious “religious freedom” cases. They reliably have ruled in favor of the pious plaintiffs, often with contorted legal reasoning.
Thus the high court’s sanctimonious justices impose theological conceits on nonbelievers, unconcerned that such an ungodly stratagem constitutes a grave constitutional sin. Let’s pray this tack fails to slow the steady increase in free-thinking Americans.
Gary Dolgin, Santa Monica
