On religious freedom, where to draw line? Your Say
Two religious freedom issues have received a lot of attention recently: Obamacare's contraception mandate and state bills that would let businesses refuse service to gay couples. Letters to the editor:
Commentary writer Tom Krattenmaker's piece, evaluating employers' rights regarding what health insurance should cover on the grounds of religious freedom vs. a "society that has decided it's good policy to get birth control to as many people as possible through employer-provided health insurance," is a joke ("Religious freedom excesses").
Why isn't the individual responsible for providing birth control? A woman can purchase several types of birth control pills for $9 per month at some pharmacies.
Back in the "old" days, an employer was allowed to choose without government interference what benefits it wanted to offer, and the employee had the choice to accept what was offered or decide to work elsewhere. What a concept!
Margaret Mosure Butler; Dublin, Ohio
It is always amusing to me how expansive is the accepted reading of the first portion of the First Amendment (free speech) vs. the second portion of that very same amendment (the free exercise of religion).
Somehow "freedom of speech" reasonably extends to exotic dancers and panhandlers, but the "free exercise" of religion cannot prevent the state from forcing people to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs.
John Parillo; Detroit
Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:
Birth control issues
In a famous religious freedom case, Muhammad Ali received an 8-0 decision from the Supreme Court saying his Black Muslim faith allowed him to avoid killing combatants in the Vietnam War. Fair enough! We have a long history of conscientious objectors over war.
Why then is it that Christians who believe it is wrong to join in the slaughter of innocents in the genocide against the unborn cannot have a similar status? Obviously, I am referring to abortion and abortifacients, and this is what is driving the lawsuits by religiously oriented business such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, whose cases are now before the Supreme Court.
— Douglas Miller
Slaughter of unborn? That's not what contraception does. Regular birth control prevents ovulation, and Plan B may inhibit implantation.
— James Jones
Bias against gays
Comparing the right-to-refuse bill in Arizona to Ali's case has problems. Conscientious objector status for serving in the military has been around for centuries. It is not just a religious issue. That status can be claimed for non-religious reasons. As for the Arizona bill, even the pope has said we should not marginalize gays, but treat them as brothers. It's hard to do that if you are refusing to serve them.
— Bob Rejefski
The Arizona bill, and the larger issue, is not about "shunning gays." It's about protecting Christians from being forced to participate in sham marriages and allowing them to opt out of the bastardization of a sacred union created by God.
It seems like a religious liberty issue to me. Shunning gay marriage is not the moral equivalent of shunning gays.
— Charlie Lehardy
People of many stripes have used various texts, religious or not, to justify actions. For the more hate-filled behavior, it has less to do with the politics of any one party than the fact that the individuals hold such hatred.
— Frank Martinez