Dan Sisk's column (In Focus, May 19) appeared to deal with the issue of a local flower shop's refusal to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding without actually mentioning the owner's name or the name of the business.
Instead, it was couched in terms of "freedom of conscience." Since conscience is associated with an inner sense of what's right and wrong, I assume that Sisk meant the freedom to act according to one's conscience.
I'm not aware of people being coerced into altering their sense of right and wrong. Nor is anyone being forced to participate in a same-sex wedding.
Sisk mentioned two examples of people who sought to limit others conscience: Hitler and Stalin, both notorious mass murderers. In March several letter writers equated the owner of Arlene's with Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi and Rosa Parks. Saints or sinners. Is it really that simple (and extreme)?
In our pluralistic society, there are many conflicting freedoms that have to be weighed against each other. As history advances, let's hope that the "right" to discriminate against someone because of their sexuality (or race or religion) is given less and less weight.
DAVID FELLER, Richland