To the Editor:
In light of recent Supreme Court decisions, including the erosion of affirmative action and abortion protections, it was disheartening but not surprising that the Court ruled in favor of a web designer’s right to reject same-sex couples. This ruling poses a threat to the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, as it seems that discrimination and oppression may become permissible under the guise of religious freedom.
I wish I could believe that the United States has achieved justice and equality for all, but the recent setback for the LGBTQ+ community during Pride Month is evidence to the contrary.
Ravin Bhatia
Brookline, Mass.
To the Editor:
As a 76-year-old lesbian, I want to clarify that my partner, our supportive family, and I would never support a business that discriminates. This issue goes beyond simply purchasing a cake or website.
The Supreme Court’s ruling implies that our love, which has endured for 34 years, is not equal. It also demonstrates a disregard for the constitutional separation of church and state.
Nancy Flaxman
Novato, Calif.
To the Editor:
I’m puzzled. Shouldn’t Christians emulate the acceptance and love taught by Jesus Christ? Jesus embraced and loved everyone, including prostitutes and sinners. The attitude of denying service to LGBTQ+ individuals contradicts this Christian principle.
It’s no wonder many people are disassociating themselves from churches, leading to a rise in “nones” who don’t identify with any specific religion.
I urge Christians, especially those who operate businesses, to embody an accepting Christian mentality, welcoming all who seek their services.
Ellen Creane
Guilford, Conn.
To the Editor:
What about interracial marriage? Some people with deeply held religious beliefs justified racial segregation using scripture, just as some use it to justify their anti-LGBTQ+ bias. In fact, these biblical arguments were used to support Jim Crow laws and lynchings.
Should these individuals be allowed to refuse service to interracial couples? If not, then why should they be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples? It appears there is some selective interpretation of scripture at play here.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a white wife, would experience poetic justice if he were denied service when ordering an anniversary cake.
In other words, this is a slippery slope.
Don Budzinski
Evanston, Ill.
To the Editor:
Regarding David French’s article “Christians and Drag Queens Both Defend the First Amendment” (Opinion, July 1), I agree that freedom of speech should protect both hateful speech (within limits) and the right to refuse to speak against one’s beliefs.
However, I fail to see how a web designer creating a wedding page for a gay couple is being forced to speak against her conscience. The speech in question belongs to the couple, not the designer. She is providing a service without assuming ownership of the words.
Am I missing something that the majority of justices also missed?
James Berkman
Plymouth, Vt.
To the Editor:
The majority of the Supreme Court has consistently disregarded precedent and imposed its own views on the public. Now, by deciding a case in which the plaintiff lacked standing, they have shown contempt for centuries of our legal system.
Lorie Smith, the web designer, wasn’t contesting a penalty for violating Colorado law. In fact, she hadn’t even started her wedding business yet.
So why was this case even decided? It’s clear that six members of the court simply wanted to impose their own opinions on the public. This exceeds the court’s authority and represents an unprecedented power grab.
Samuel Rosen
New York
Care, Not Jail, for Drug Users
To the Editor:
The overdose crisis is devastating communities across the country, but incarcerating people is not an effective solution. Decades of punitive policies have proven their failure.
It is wrong and infuriating to see elected officials pushing for mandatory minimum prison sentences and murder charges for drug suppliers involved in fentanyl-related deaths.
Criminalization and incarceration are not the answer. We should be focusing on a health-based strategy. We need to provide naloxone, safer drug use supplies, and drug checking tools to individuals using drugs. Overdose prevention centers, medication treatment access, and practical information and support are crucial.
We can’t bring back the lives already lost, but by prioritizing care over criminalization, we can make progress in the face of a crisis that claims over 100,000 lives each year.
Tony Newman
Brooklyn
Your Wordle Scores: Skill or Luck?
To the Editor:
Like many other avid readers of The New York Times, I find myself addicted to Wordle. The game requires both skill and luck, as do many other games.
In the early days of Wordle, I would sometimes blame bad luck for a poor score when there were multiple possible answers and no skill was involved in choosing among them.
But now, with the Times’s WordleBot evaluating the decisions made during a game and quantifying the components of skill and luck, we can test the old saying “It’s better to be lucky than good.”
After analyzing my Wordle skill and luck scores over the past 90 days, compared to other Wordle enthusiasts, it appears that luck plays a significant role. Although skill is important for consistent success, luck may be twice as influential.
So, the next time your friend brags about a better Wordle score, you can attribute it to mere chance. But be prepared, as luck may also favor them in the future.
Neil G. Bennett
Stamford, Conn.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
