Is there ‘wrong’or ‘right’ in refusing service to patrons on moral grounds?

‘Make a stand’

Regarding “Sanders says she was told to leave Virginia restaurant” (June 23): There are some things in life you don’t get to choose: Whether or not you are straight or gay, your skin color, your gender.

Then there are things in life you do get to choose: whether or not you work for an administration that has openly and repeatedly made policies that hurt citizens of this country, as well as those seeking asylum here.

Sarah Huckabee-Sanders can quit her job at any time and find another employer. No one has to tolerate or cater to openly racist, sexist or xenophobic politicians, or their staff.

All of us together must make a stand to tell people we will not accept what is going on in Washington. I hope that more business owners and politicians will find the courage to act as The Red Hen has. Only by showing the world we will not tolerate hatred will we regain our humanity.

Difference?

Regarding “Justices won’t hear case of anti-gay marriage florist” (June 25): What is the difference in a florist or baker refusing to provide a service to someone they morally don’t agree with and a restaurant manager kicking out someone they don’t morally agree with?

Nothing, except the media and legal system bully the former and justify the latter. What hypocrisy.

‘Fair play’

In “Trump country is much more tolerant than liberals claim to be” (June 28), Gary Abernathy cites the Red Hen incident as a brand-new precedent for conservative businesses to deny service to any customers they view as violators of their ethical or moral principles.

Excuse me, Gary, but where were you when the Supreme Court recently ruled that a conservative baker did not have to provide a cake for a gay wedding?

For decades, liberals, despite their “politics, lies, and defense of the indefensible,” have fought for equal access and opportunity for everybody.

That Stephanie Wilkinson gave Trump supporters a taste of turnabout is fair play and far more delicious to me than any wedding cake.

‘Right and wrong’

Every group in America is looking for acceptance, recognition, protection, and tolerance. Whether a group represents gender, racial, economic or religious equality, each group desires the same exact results. Each group wants their ideology, lifestyle and symbolism integrated into mainstay American life without question and condemnation.

Yet, today in America, ancestors of the Confederate States of America, Trump supporters and evangelical Christians are being denied acceptance, recognition, protection and tolerance.

LBGT people, the feminist movement, Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, and Islamists are winning acceptance in America while the ancestors of the CSA, Trump supporters and evangelical Christians are being vilified and mistreated because of their beliefs.

The questions that must be asked are, who decides which groups are moral and which ones are immoral? Who gets to be the final judge of right and wrong? Why is one group correct over the next? If one group with flaws gets acceptance, recognition, protection and tolerance, all groups, whether or not one morally, politically or religiously agrees with them, deserve acceptance.

‘Same principles’

I find the juxtaposition of articles on page 5A of the June 26 issue of The News & Observer to be quite interesting. In the upper left corner we find Trump twittering in outrage about how unfairly Republicans are being treated by those nasty liberals. How shameful that they are being discriminated against and denied services in public places.

In the lower right corner we find an article about a florist who refused to create an arrangement for a same-sex wedding, similar to the Colorado baker who similarly was exercising deeply-felt beliefs which led to the denial of services to members of the public.

What has Trump and the Republican hive mind had to say about these cases? Is it not the case that the same principles apply in all of these cases? Is the outrage not selectively targeted?

‘Plain anger’

Regarding “ Trump country is much more tolerant than liberals claim to be” (June 28): When a victim gets angry and fights back against a bully, there is no moral equivalency between the two. Period.

To be sure, the restaurateur and customers who drove away Trump administration officials from Washington establishments did the wrong thing. So did the college students who have prevented “provocateur” Milo Yiannopoulos – who apparently now advocates assassination of journalists – from speaking on campuses.

When we counsel children not to fight back against bullies but to channel their anger constructively, we do so wisely. But people of conscience are in grief for our country as Trump’s increasingly authoritarian cabal and his Tea Party enablers viciously attack immigrants, minorities, the poor, journalists and even war heroes. When some of them start to fight back, I suspect it’s not hypocritical intolerance, but just plain anger.

‘Explain’

Regarding “Trump criticizes restaurant for refusing Sanders” (June 26): So it is OK to not bake a cake or not make a flower arrangement because you have religious beliefs that don’t include everyone. I can see both sides of that problem even though I disagree.

What I do not understand is why our president can blast a restaurant owner for exercising her beliefs regarding Republicans. Will someone please explain?