Interfering with freedoms

Regarding the Feb. 19 editorial “Religion not a free pass in florist case,” in which the editorial board agrees with the court’s decision, under which the government forces business people to serve any consumer they encounter, though it violates their religious beliefs and moral values.

On what basis is the court imposing a burden on people and impelling them to drop their moral values when they enter their house of business? The editorial admits that the gay couple could have easily shopped elsewhere for the flowers. Instead, they used the courts to punish this poor businesswoman, whose freedom has now been taken from her.

I noted that shortly after the election, several elite fashion houses announced they would refuse doing any business with the first lady, because they disagreed with the policies of the newly elected president. The announcements by these outfits were greeted with wide applause by the liberal left. I doubt these establishments would be subjected to similar charges of discrimination as has poor Stutzman.

We need to be fearful of growing government interference with freedoms our forefathers worked and fought so hard for. Next we could see government forcing doctors and nurses to provide medical procedures that violate their ethical and moral values. Should that take place, we would then be in a totalitarian state.

Gene Cunneely, Sr.

Spokane