Tom Wimsatt

Mount Airy, Md 21771-7490

The Gazette

218 Main Street

Mount Airy, Md.  21771

Dear Gazette,

I cannot agree with David Koontz in the August 7 Gazette.  Since when do we grant a “protected class” to a behavior?  This is a very dangerous idea.  It seems to me that we, as a country, have spent the last few decades helping folks to overcome the behavior of smoking by outlawing the practice in the vast majority of our workplaces and public gathering places because it is believed to be an unhealthy activity.  A good number of people do not want to be bothered by the effects of smoking and have gone to great lengths to remove smokers from their spaces.  Given the current reasoning regarding homosexuality, maybe we should back up and grant protected class status to smokers.  After all, aren’t they being discriminated against?  Aren’t they being singled out and not allowed to practice their smoking in public, in hotels, on planes and at their work?  Wouldn’t it be true to say that if a smoker wanted to smoke in his place of employment rather than outside or in the designated smoking areas that person would be asked to seek employment elsewhere?  Are we being intolerant towards our fellow Americans who happen to smoke?

Now, I do not smoke.  I am also not sympathizing with the plight of the smoker.  We need to recognize that granting special rights and protection to people who choose to behave in certain ways is dangerous.  What’s next?  Should we not discriminate against a “former” child molester seeking employment in a daycare?  Or how about a man seeking employment as a restroom attendant in a ladies restroom?  How are you going to handle the situation where a homosexual seeks employment in a church where that behavior is considered immoral?  Are you going to stop tolerating those religions who have held since before the founding of this country that certain behaviors are immoral, or are you going to ram your new morality down their throats in the name of “tolerance”? 

I do not agree with violence against anyone with whom I disagree, but I reserve the right to disagree and not accept things I believe are immoral.  By setting up protections for behaviors, we are immediately creating an atmosphere of intolerance for those who disagree with those behaviors.  Aren’t we trying to avoid intolerance?  Those who are using “tolerance” as their reason for protecting homosexuality are attempting to force us to accept the behavior and, ultimately, to make it immoral to think homosexuality is wrong.