Given its provenance (… a group of [very conservative] Mid-coast citizens …), I knew I would disagree with Ken Frederic’s May 5 op-ed, “Is it Democracy or Bullying?” But it was such an abstruse piece of writing that it took several readings, a Google search and my Captain Midnight decoder ring to divine his intended message.

Frederic is against bullying. Because he obliquely refers to “the Memories Pizza debacle,” he is apparently citing gay rights supporters bullying an Indiana pizzeria owner who announced, if asked, that he would refuse to cater a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs. This unsolicited statement engendered some hostile responses on the Internet. But this bullying doesn’t look to be Frederic’s major objection. In alluding to the legal standard of “preponderance of evidence,” he doesn’t want the civil courts to hear sexual orientation discrimination cases until the law and legal standards are specific and widely approved. In Frederic’s world, this too would be bullying: By the legal system.

The U.S. Constitution and its Amendments define some of the obligations and rights of Americans. The 14th Amendment speaks to personal liberty, banning discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in public establishments, including restaurants. Sexual orientation is not currently a class protected under this Amendment. How would these not-so-equal Americans become full participants in their country? They would sue! As Frederic admits, we do not have a democracy, a tyranny of the majority, but a republic where the courts and our Constitution protect the rights of the minority. It is disingenuous to suggest that a discrimination suit amounts to bullying by the legal system, when that is exactly what the courts are for under the Constitution.

Before I’m accused of intolerance for religious beliefs, I affirm the pizzeria owner is free to believe as he will. Short of another’s rights (and the law), he may act as he will. But he cannot currently discriminate against Jews (for example) in his business and expect to escape civil suits under Federal law. Since gay marriage is legal in Indiana, he probably can’t discriminate against gays either, under State law. Maybe he needs to work outside the area of public accommodations.

The prolific output of Frederic’s group of concerned citizens is so reliably far Right that I suspect they are a group with a number of members but only one world view. I picture their meetings looking like a bobblehead convention in an earthquake. They need to incorporate a variety of viewpoints to be taken seriously.

Steven Zimmerman Topsham