Ruling ignored public accommodation principle
The June 6 editorial “Upholding Free Exercise” ignored the principle of public accommodation, wherein businesses offering services to the public must do so without discrimination.
We can see this principle in action when John Adams provided legal counsel to British soldiers in court in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, six years prior to his participation in writing the Declaration of Independence. Almost two centuries later, many citizens of all races, religions and sexual orientations fought for equality at lunch counters, public transit and numerous other businesses resulting in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting discrimination.
While sexual orientation may not be explicitly listed in the laws passed more than 50 years ago, the principle is clear. To be permitted to operate a business in our society, you must accept all your fellow citizens as customers. Jack Phillips (the baker in the present case) has a right to have his case adjudicated in an appropriate and impartial way, which the court found did not happen. However, I believe the claim of personal religious beliefs superseding obligations under the principle of public accommodation are without merit. DAVID GREENWALD O’Hara your business or profession then you are free to go do something else where you are free to associate with whomever you please and free to practice your religious beliefs without trying to force the public to cater to you. HENRY W. JONES Moon
It was an interesting column by Marc A. Thiessen in Saturday’s Post-Gazette about the appalling transgressions of lies and misdeeds committed by the Obama administration regarding the Iran nuclear accord (June 9, “Obama Took Lying to New Levels on Iran”). The message was enlightening over the access secretly allowed Iran to the United States financial system by the administration while publicly stating it wasn’t happening.
I found it wanting, however, in the next to the last paragraph when it posed the question, “Remove the words ‘Obama’ and ‘Iran’ with ‘Trump’ and ‘Russia’ and imagine the outrage that would ensue over the same revelations.”
What was the message here? Was it, “But Mommy, all the other presidents were allowed to do it”? We have to address all such misdeeds without such ridiculous reasoning. BOB WARD
O’Hara
We welcome your opinion
penchant not just for boorishness but dishonesty and his early failings, especially with regard to the handling of Russian election meddling both past and future — with little being done to insure the ongoing integrity of U.S. elections — is whiny and rings hollow.
If laws have not and are not being outright broken (and that remains to be seen), some that go to the integrity of our Republic are clearly being ignored. N. MICHAEL FAZZINI
O’Hara