The Arizona law mentioned in the Bob Ray Sanders column, “When it comes to bigotry, Arizona and Uganda are alike” on March 2, was about protecting constitutional First Amendment rights.
Contrary to the column’s characterization of this bill as being “anti-gay,” there was no mention in the actual vetoed bill of gays, lesbians or people of other sexual orientations.
How is the attempt to protect religious beliefs, even if these beliefs keep someone from providing services, “backward, bigoted, political leadership?”
Laws that protect religious freedoms are imperative in a time when religious rights are being trampled across the world and at home. The right to exercise religious beliefs should be more important than people’s right to have their picture taken, whether they be gay or straight.
As the discrimination card keeps being played, we fail to see the other greater rights that all, including the purported victims of discrimination, are losing.
— Maria Caero, Fort Worth
Too much ink
I am amazed at the number of college football and basketball players who have festooned themselves with odd haircuts, metal-capped teeth, body piercings and tattoos. What are they thinking when they do this? Is it a plea for recognition? I feel sorry for them.
Only a very few will ever be drafted by the pro teams, where body art will probably have little effect on their careers. Those not drafted will have to find other employment to support themselves and their families.
Piercings can heal, hair can be cut and teeth can be fixed but tattoos are permanent.
Do these young men not realize what an adverse effect body art can have on their employment possibilities? Many professional companies demand that any employee cover all body art. Other prospective employers automatically reject anyone with visible tattoos.
College coaches would do their athletes a real favor by counseling them about body art and its drawbacks in life after college.
— Larry McGuire, Crowley
Time for change
In recent months, U.S. Rep. Kay Granger voted twice to allow the nation to default on its debt.
The latest was last month, when 27 rational Republicans joined virtually all the Democrats to preserve America’s credit rating and our fragile economic recovery. Sandwiched between these two irresponsible votes was her vote in conjunction with Tea Party radicals to shut down the government, threatening our military, our defense workers and our seniors’ retirement income and healthcare.
When she went to Washington almost two decades ago Granger was seen as a pragmatic centrist, but each year she has aligned herself more closely with the most radical elements of her party. Simultaneously, she becomes less and less visible locally, more distant from her constituents and her district, her only focus being on ensuring her real-estate project keeps sucking up taxpayer dollars and providing her son a hefty paycheck.
We need a change.
— Chris Johnson, Fort Worth
Indoor range ruckus
It is totally ridiculous for the Fort Worth ISD to spend time and money opposing an “indoor” gun range.
Their attorney saying stray bullets would be “zipping around” is ludicrous. How could he even say that with a straight face? This is an indoor range with a concrete-walled room where the shooting will take place. Also, referring to a stray bullet incident in Garland in 2010, that was an outdoor range.
The district’s argument is so weak it should be a reflection on the boards’ priority. They are wasting time on this flimsy action against a private venture that will add to the tax base and increase employment in our city.
— Bob Cosby, Fort Worth