This is Viewpoints for Thursday, May 12, 2016

Confusion

I’m confused. You keep saying Gov. Deal did the right thing by vetoing the “Religious Liberty” bill claiming it wasn’t needed because of the First Amendment. Apparently, you must believe that a situation similar to what happened in Oregon and Washington in which private businesses were sued for failing to provide services for gay weddings couldn’t happen here because there are no anti-discrimination laws on the books.

Yet, you had no problem in your recent editorial of being critical of the 3rd District’s censure of Deal mentioning the economic peril North Carolina could face because of their recently signed law. When part of it was legislation preventing local governments from signing LGBT anti-discrimination laws. Did I mention those very laws were used to sue private citizens in what I thought was a free country?

From a pure Libertarian standpoint, I can understand anyone who wouldn’t like the state telling a local government what laws they cannot pass. That being said, when those laws are used to upend the very concept of the free market, what’s someone to do? “Discrimination” is not immoral in all cases. Freedom of non-association isn’t evil.

There are gas stations and restaurants who post signs saying “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.” Some choose not to. Stores such as Target and Toys R Us forbid people from bringing weapons inside stores, regardless of whether they have a concealed carry permit. Yet in at least two cases, gay couples chose to litigate against businesses who exercised their First Amendment beliefs, rather than simply go to a businesses that would accommodate them.

In closing, it’s acceptable for businesses to prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights but any attempt to ensure a business can exercise their First Amendment rights is wrong. To paraphrase the late Congressman James Trafficant, I yield back the balance of hypocrisy remaining.

No confusion here. Georgia doesn’t have any of the laws of the type where gays have sued, so there is no basis to sue in the state under similar grounds as the states mentioned. However, providing services and protecting private property rights are very different issues. Who would be held liable, for example, if there were a shooting in a Target store? We are sure the company’s risk management had more to do with the denial of weapons in the store than constitutional rights. No shoes, no shirt, no service, is a matter of sanitation that can be easily complied with by anyone. Make no mistake. Gov. Deal’s veto was made because of economic reasons. Whether you believe those reasons are valid are debatable, but we would have you ask Indiana and North Carolina. We could have you ask Mississippi, but, well, there’s nothing to compare that state’s economics to Georgia’s. It didn’t have much to lose.

Ideas for sports complex

The proposed $22 million sports complex should be designed and staffed to provide maximum access to athletic facilities for all Warner Robbins residents, not build nine softball fields in the vague hope of enticing teams to conduct tournaments in Warner Robins. Four softball fields are more than adequate. The cost to maintain, staff and secure a 43,000 square-foot building to house two in-door basketball courts would be high. If adequate precautions are not implemented the building could deteriorate into a hangout.

To begin with, the city council should: ensure that the complex is adequately lighted; that there are sufficient toilets, located throughout the complex; and good parking, because most participants will have to drive to the complex.

I think the complex should have a well-marked jogging track that encircles it. Also, there should be fixed exercise stations located along the track. A nature walking trail should be located adjacent to the track. There should be four basketball courts, but not located next to each other. There should be eight individually fenced tennis courts. There should be four beach volleyball courts. Three horseshoe pits should be adequate. There could even be one Bocce Ball court and one bowling alley. Not locating activities next to each other should reduce congestion and allow participants to exercise without being hassled.

A well-controlled sports complex will be very beneficial. But the city council has to make determinations to ensure the facility is safe and regulated. Who will be responsible for security? Will there be a police presence? Who will be responsible for scheduling the use of basketball and tennis courts and the other sporting areas? What are the hours of operation?

I encourage all to make their views known. This should not become a facility that is only used by a select few.

This story was originally published May 11, 2016 at 9:40 PM with the headline "This is Viewpoints for Thursday, May 12, 2016."