I read with interest the Feb. 26 letter “Overtaken by intolerance.” I was surprised by the comparison of those fighting to defend their religious freedom to the Ku Klux Klan.
This appears to be a glaring attempt to equate Christians to a racist organization. Anyone with a knowledge of American history knows the Ku Klux Klan was not born out of religious hatred, as stated, but was part of the post-Civil War insurgency and part of a general white supremacy movement.
The writer seems to feel that the homosexual agenda trumps those rights given to us by our Creator and so eloquently elaborated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights
By equating Christians to racists and bigots, he furthers the narrative being spewed by this agenda. Asking someone to sacrifice his or her religious beliefs for any agenda is explicitly repudiated by the First Amendment.
I would think that the writer, having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution during his years of public service and his years of law education, would understand this, but apparently I am sadly mistaken.
In all the cases I have reviewed where a Christian business has refused service to a homosexual couple due to the owners’ Christian beliefs, they have offered alternatives for the same services at similar or even lower cost.
No hate was expressed, only that the businesses could not participate due to the owners’ religious beliefs.
It is clear that the businesses were sought out to make examples of them in a further effort to silence Christian opposition to homosexual marriage. This, I and fellow Christians cannot accept.
Who is the real bigot? The person standing for their protected right to religious freedom or the person asking them to subjugate their beliefs in order to satisfy a business transaction? Each person must answer that for themselves.
Consumers drive the economy
There have been letters published that insist the “job creators” are those who own or manage a business. We have to remove the hyperbole, then look at America’s economic history.
At our founding, most people were management and labor. We were subsistence farmers, artisans and merchants. On the limited number of occasions when we needed something we could not produce, we bartered for an exchange of goods or services.
As the nation grew, so did commerce. Some things could be produced efficiently in larger quantities, so businesses developed that could accomplish this. They hired employees.
But the bulk of this type of commerce was between giants such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, who built empires, with large numbers of employees who received just enough to stay alive and produce for their employers. At the end of their usefulness, they were simply discarded. They reached the finish line with nothing.
Eventually, those in ownership positions discovered that there could be a large, untapped market in the growing number of employees, if the employees had the wherewithal to enter.
To this end, some, like Henry Ford (ignoring his many faults), raised wages.
Today, for the most part, we have a consumer-driven economy based on a significant majority of citizens’ ability to purchase goods and services. Remove that, and hundreds of businesses founder or fail.
Most businesses rely on a large consumer base. If your product is not needed, not desirable, of poor quality or unaffordable, then it matters not one bit how hard you work, your business will disappear.
A business that produces a product that is needed, desired, of good quality and can be purchased by many, will grow. Ultimately, the consumer will determine its fate.
If there is demand, someone will find a means to fulfill it. If there is no demand, attempting to create jobs is an exercise in futility.
Consumers are at the bottom of the economic pyramid. But they are its base. Without them, the pseudo job creators can bargain among themselves for buggy whips and chalk boards.
Paul J. Forestal
In response to the Feb. 25 article on Asian carp (“Plans taking shape to stop fish invasion”), I would like to add: What’s the big deal? Gefilte fish — bring it on.
Outrage now and not then
The writer of the Feb. 21 letter “Impeachable offenses” trashed President Obama for using executive orders and not letting members of Congress do the job mandated in the Constitution.
There were few complaints when the previous presidents did the same thing.
Congress has refused to hold votes on President Obama’s nominees and on bills urged by him, instead taking 41 useless votes on the Affordable Care Act, knowing that they wouldn’t count for anything, just waste time and taxpayers’ money.
Spying by the National Security Agency went into affect under George W. Bush, with support from people like the writer, people who kept saying, “I don’t have anything to hide; I don’t care if they listen to my calls.”
If spying bothers them now, where was the outrage about what the Bush administration was doing to avoid going through a Democratic House?
There was no outrage sounded from the left, either. Bush supporters kept saying that if you don’t support our president, then you must be a traitor, and, if you don’t like it, then get out of the country.
Until Republicans can be honest, they should keep quiet.