Re: "Government obliged to protect liberties"

After reading Angel Clark's letter in this newspaper, I was troubled by a few of the things that I read. I think some of that can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution.

First, Angel states that "when our government permits businesses to refuse its citizens service based on religious belief, does it fail to be a government for the people?"

What business does the government have telling a private business owner who they can and can't provide goods and services to? Do you really want more government intervention in private business? Have you ever seen a sign hanging in a store that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," or "No shirt, no shoes, no service"? If Angel is right and the government has the right to control a business this way, then what happens when a KKK member walks into a minority-owned business and demands service? I hope that all of us would be happy to see the business owner refuse service to this person and kick him/her out of the store. According to Angel's logic the business cannot turn this person away because the government has to prevent the private business owner from refusing goods and services to someone because of a difference in beliefs.

The key to all of this is the word "private." It's like watching television, if you don't like the show, then turn the channel. If you don't like a private business, go to another one.

Angel is right in saying that America is the land of the free, and part of that is the free market. With more government intervention comes less freedom. Angel also states, "such a provision is cause for the intervention of the government to ensure the separation of church and state." The phrase, "separation of church and state" cannot be found in any part of the U.S. Constitution. It came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists from Danbury, CT in 1802. The 1st Amendment does say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Is a private business owner who refuses service based on religious beliefs just exercising his/her 1st Amendment right of exercising his/her religion freely? Asking the government to intervene in our private lives is a dangerous road that we do want to take. Ask anybody who lived in the former Soviet Union. I believe that one of the first things they did was take over all the private businesses and attempt to eliminate all religion.

I admire Angel's passion in asking us to stand up against this blatant prejudice, however "we" must stand up to this, not the government.

Chip Cathcart

Coulee Dam