Letters: Ohio attorney general wrongly battles anti-discrimination policy; Supreme Court

·2 min read

Lawsuit against USDA policy is wrong

Regarding the July 31 article, "Ohio joins lawsuit to stop USDA ban," I fervently oppose the anti-LGBTQ+ policy position that the Ohio attorney general appears to support. The Food and Nutrition Service program is expanding discrimination protections under U.S. Department of Agriculture policy to include adding gender identity and sexual orientation as a protected class on the basis of sex under Title IX as of May.

I am very concerned that the Ohio AG and other state attorneys general seem to think that it is OK to openly discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in policymaking which is wrong. If the Ohio AG is concerned about private and religious schools losing federal funds, then it is a very simple fix — don't discriminate against LGBTQ+ kids in school and keep your federal funding.

What is more important, feeding all kids at school and protecting their rights, or openly discriminating against minors who are LGBTQ+ kids who just want to attend school free from harm and hate? I implore Attorney General Dave Yost and other state attorneys general to stop advocating for discrimination against LGBTQ+ kids, and to protect our youth by ending this discriminatory lawsuit. It should be a common consensus that all kids should be fed and protected at school, whether gay or straight. LGBTQ+ people are our friends, neighbors, family members and co-workers and deserve to eat and live like anyone else.

Nancy Dollard, Lake Township

High court is acknowledging limited role

No, the Supreme Court doesn't believe our founders were stupid ("Supreme Court must believe our founders were stupid," July 29). They believe that the founders didn't want a few judges to determine what our unenumerated rights are. Those decisions were to be left up to the states or to the people, according to the Ninth and 10th amendments. I am surprised that writer Bill Jordan doesn't grasp that.

It is about time that a Supreme Court, this one, decided to acknowledge its limited role and return the determination of rights to the people, rather than create new ones as was done in the past.

Robert Umbarger, Munroe Falls

This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Support federal discrimination protections in food program