We hope that todays “Readers Forum” will provoke “…honest and open dialogue concerning issues that we, as responsible citizens of this community, need to address in a rational and responsible way?”
Todays “Readers Poll” question is: Do you feel that our tax dollars should be spent on putting painted abstract Murals on side of buildings?
Please take time and read our articles entitled “STATEHOUSE Files, CHANNEL 44 NEWS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, READERS POLL, BIRTHDAYS, HOT JOBS” and “LOCAL SPORTS”.  You now are able to subscribe to get the CCO daily.
If you would like to advertise in the CCO please contact us City-County Observer@live.com.


EDITOR’S FOOTNOTE:  Any comments posted in this column do not represent the views or opinions of the City County Observer or our advertisers


  1. The SCOTUS should decide on the side of the bakery owner – here’s why.
    Im white, can a black roofer vrefuse to roof my house? Can a hospital force a doctor to perform an abortion? Can a black baker refuse to make a cake with Conferate flag icing? Can a Jewish baker refuse to put a swastica on a cake?
    It seems consumers have more rights than providers , the way some argue. If public money is invilved, then yes, the entity cannot turn away anyone( like a state park-arena, etc.)Governement entities are not private businesses.
    A case could be made in the event a private business was allowed tax abatements ,however small the amount, one could say the private business then has ties to public money. In such a case, if that business were to go belly up, tax payer money would be lost, unless the agreement provided for reimbursement to the government. It might be said that business may have to comply with local anti discrimination laws.
    In the case before the SCOTUS, the business owner should prevail. There are many bakers, florists, photographers, etc. that would provide these services. On a side note, this may be a “gotcha” case from the start, which is not relevant.

Comments are closed.