Readers talk bills against bullying, for religious beliefs

Tribune readers commented online on an anti-bullying bill in the Montana Legislature; the notion of replacing Great Falls High School with a new building; and a bill that would have allowed Montanans to refuse service to people on religious grounds.

Anti-bullying

Amy Reagan, Anaconda:

We don’t need a law; we need parents who raise their kids to be respectful and kind.

Kristie Conant:

Yes, it is needed! It’s so sad that kids can do this to other kids and it needs to stop! What is worse is their parents aren’t catching this in time or maybe they are on denial about it. But something needs to be done.

Joeseph D. Durtonimos:

More unneeded laws; that’s what keeps the politicians in business.

Edward Martin, Cascade:

Can’t think of any reason not to. Unless, I guess, you like to be a bully.

Rebecca S. Brese, Great Falls:

Bullying has taken on a completely different meaning from when I was kid. It’s gotten to be faceless, vicious and can come at you from all over the world because of the Internet.

Leslie Teske Mills:

Maybe what (we) should have is licensing to be a parent ...

Michele YellowRobe, Seattle:

That’s what I think. Useless laws.

Fate of Great Falls High School

Michelle Barcomb Westveer:

Great Falls High is an amazing piece of history and architecture. I think it should be maintained and still used as a high school, not shut down or sold.

Brenda Buono DeBolt:

You all have to remember when Great Falls High first opened, it was only half-days (double shifts) so everyone could graduate. Now, please fix the building and sell the administration building; add air conditioning in the gym, old and new.

Judy Kojetin, Great Falls:

Close GFHS? Are you kidding? Start with pay cuts at the top.

Religious bill

Jacque Currie, Missoula:

Glad this bill didn’t make it!

Raini Way, Great Falls:

We just don’t want the same thing happening to Montana business owners that happened to an Oregon couple. As private business owners, they should not be forced to participate in a practice that violates their religious principles. Yet people tried to do just that. This bill would put extra measures in place to see to it that the First Amendment takes priority over the very much not mentioned in the Constitution “right to privacy.”

Readers Sound Off is a weekly feature of the Two Cents page.