Regarding the article, “Court rules against Richland florist in gay wedding case”: I’m hoping that I’m not the only person who recognizes the danger in court-ordered business intrusion. The Washington Supreme Court has found the little florist shop guilty for choosing to not decorate the wedding of two men. The shop owners offered to refer the happy couple to other florists. Then the AG picked up on the story and decided to prosecute. This should have been a non-issue and passed into the ether.
The rights of the small business owner no longer exist.
I suspect that there are people lauding the action to “protect” the rights of all. I applaud the protection of the rights of each citizen.
However, private owners of business and private property should have their rights protected, too.
During my life I have entered private businesses whose owners/employees were unable to recognize my presence. I wasn’t very happy with their choice, but respected their rights to be obtuse. Of course, I mentioned this treatment to my friends.
I believe that pressure from the marketplace is to be preferred over governmental intervention in these cases. If we give government the power to intrude in our lives to this depth, we’ll regret it sooner than later.
I truly hope that readers will consider my concerns.
Paula Deter
Camano Island
Talk to us
- You can tell us about news and ask us about our journalism by emailing newstips@heraldnet.com or by calling 425-339-3428.
- If you have an opinion you wish to share for publication, send a letter to the editor to letters@heraldnet.com or by regular mail to The Daily Herald, Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206.
- More contact information is here.
