Readers React: Sacrificing religious freedom should never be part of a comprimise
To the editor: Your editorial cleverly talks about the balance of two important values: freedom of conscience and freedom from discrimination. It does not frame the debate as a balancing of two rights. (“Discrimination ruling in same-sex-marriage case strikes right balance between freedoms,” editorial, Dec. 30)
Is that because you know there are no constitutional rights for either conscience or to be free from gender discrimination?
The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Why doesn’t the state court ruling against a Massachusetts Catholic school that rescinded a job offer to a man it discovered was married to another man prohibit the school’s free exercise of religion? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution trump state law?
The final sentence of your editorial — about extending Massachusetts’ law on discrimination in hiring by religious organizations nationwide — concerned me. Do you really propose to eliminate the religious protection of the 1st Amendment?
Thank God our founding fathers required agreement of 75% of the states to amend the Constitution. Or would you like to eliminate that part of the Constitution too?
Casey Hamlin, Bell Canyon
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.