Bigotry exposed amid intellectual dishonesty

Re “The fascists of free speech,” Opinion, Feb. 25

I was amazed when Catherine Seipp referred to a “snotty San Francisco clerk” as a “suspected homosexual.”

What exactly is he suspected of doing, and how did Seipp determine he was a likely suspect? Because he lived in San Francisco and worked in a bookstore? Or perhaps because he was snotty?

Does she also quickly root out “suspected Jews and Muslims,” or “suspected communists,” like some right-wing bloodhound?

This ridiculous, stereotypical labeling continued as she claimed that she understood the Muslim world “all too well” -- not on the basis of extensive scholarly research and thought but on the anecdotal evidence of “helpful news photos” of placard-waving “shrouded women,” who, of course, certainly must represent the views of the more than 1.2 billion Muslims throughout the world. I wonder if she also could identify any “suspected homosexuals” in their ranks?

One thing we can say for sure is that Seipp is not a “suspected bigot,” because her diatribe removed all doubt.

MICHAEL S. TAGGART

Sherman Oaks

*

I find it rather disingenuous of Seipp to rail against the restrictive policies of a single bookstore when she is living in a country where merely criticizing the policies of elected public officials is routinely labeled as treason. Her righteous outrage would be amusing if it weren’t so intellectually dishonest.

MICHAEL K. FINNIGAN

Encino