LETTERS: Legislators sidestep religious freedom

To the editor:

Our state legislators recently revealed their yellow bellies by withdrawing support from a bill to create the Nevada Protection of Religious Freedom Act (“Nevada religious freedom bill dies,” April 4 Review-Journal). By supporting religious freedom, the state risked offending gays and lesbians by allowing discrimination by businesses and corporations. Existing laws prohibit discrimination against minorities and the LGBT community; however, the faith-based community is a minority whose rights are being trampled.

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. Religion is not limited to when, where and how one worships. The exercise of religion means that daily activities are influenced by those beliefs that are central to people’s lives. A quick reading of the amendment suggests people of faith are able to live their lives accordingly, but this is not the case.

In other states, florists, photographers and bakers have been successfully sued for refusing to provide services to gays and lesbians at same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies. These individuals are implementing their “free exercise” of religion that the Constitution guarantees. These are individuals with closely held religious beliefs. People create businesses to make money; denying services results in loss of income. Following one’s conscience is not without consequence.

It is not as though gays and lesbians cannot find vendors to meet their needs. It is not as though tourism in Las Vegas will cease because some individuals will not provide a narrow list of services. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority will assure LGBT tourists that the city is eager and ready to meet all of their needs and desires.

Meanwhile, individuals trying to make an honest living have to either risk litigation by following their principles or violate their sense of right and wrong. Laura Martin, from the left-leaning Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, characterized any such bills as “legislated hatred.” I wonder who really hates whom?

JENNIFER ANDERSON

HENDERSON

Yucca: Irrational fears

To the editor:

Regarding Dean Tomsa’s letter (“Dangers of reopening Yucca Mountain far outweigh benefits,”April 4 Review-Journal), I have a good background in physics, and I thoroughly toured the proposed Yucca Mountain repository some 10 or so years ago. My opinion is that most Nevadans’ fears of nuclear energy byproduct storage are a result of fear and lack of scientific information.

The dangers of radiation poisoning are very real, but pose a more serious problem where the waste is currently located, because there are no legitimately adequate long-term storage facilities, which means storage there is less safe. The question regarding the safe transportation of waste is a valid concern, but it’s used in Nevada as a smokescreen for facts, since it is primarily of concern elsewhere along transportation routes.

The idea that a serious earthquake will surely hit Yucca Mountain eventually, because there are many fault lines in Nevada, is questionable as an exercise in probability theory. It does not address the probable impact to future residents of Southern Nevada, which is not zero, but is extremely unlikely. There are no known better alternative sites, though the government has searched for one, and financial benefits for Nevadans far exceed just employment. States and organizations that would send waste here would have to pay Nevada for storage.

Arguments against the Yucca Mountain project appear to be largely political, due to Sen. Harry Reid’s exploitation of average citizens’ unscientific fears and the media’s lack of investigative reporting. I think Nevada, for all the wrong reasons, could miss an extremely lucrative opportunity and a very logical solution to a developing national problem if it fails to exploit Yucca Mountain.

CRAIG HUTZLER

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Hillary hypocrisy

To the editor:

I am the first one to enjoy a good joke, and I found Tuesday’s in the Review-Journal Business section. There was an article about a speech made by Hillary Clinton in which she complains bitterly and advocates vigorously against the unholy salaries received by executives of multibillion dollar businesses (“Clinton takes swipe at CEO pay”). Mrs. Clinton states how unfair it is for CEOs to make so much, while the poor workers (who wouldn’t have a job at all without these “fat cats”) are forced to take subsistence wages.

This is the same Hillary Clinton who receives in excess of $300,000 for a 90-minute speech, as well as first-class transportation and tens of thousands of dollars in other perks. This is the same Hillary Clinton who advocates for equal pay for all women, except those employed by her. These examples of hypocrisy could go on ad infinitum.

This is the same Hillary Clinton who does not always have a close relationship with facts. We already have one of those types of people in the White House. We don’t need another.

GORDON SOEDER

LAS VEGAS