I am a bit confused as to the merit of forcing a florist to sell to gays -- less than 3 percent of the population who do not represent the average -- when they can easily achieve the goal of wedding decoration elsewhere.
I compare this to U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi's idea of depriving guns to some 97 percent of the population supposedly for self-protection. Something amiss?
Both operations seem to be connected to vast sums of money for either political advantage or ego control of the population. I've always assumed lawyers were men sent to protect us from legal theft. Am I wrong? Nowadays, some lawyers seem determined to support not the Constitution but a chaotic brand of random favoritism in some of the lawmaking.
Should we not reconsider the problems in light of the Ten Commandments?
JAMES C. LANGFORD, Richland