Rights different from mandates

Published: Tuesday, Mar. 25, 2014 - 11:03 am
Last Modified: Thursday, Mar. 27, 2014 - 1:53 pm

Re "Hobby Lobby Supreme Court challenge": Editorially, the Bee objects to Hobby Lobby seeking exemption from the requirement that birth control devices be offered to its employees. The Bee argues that for-profit corporations should not enjoy any religious exemption. It also refers to employees' rights.

I think The Bee confuses rights with mandates. The government's decision that contraceptives must be offered in health plans was, and remains, a political decision conferred as a mandate. As to the rights of for-profit corporations not enjoying religious exemptions, why stop at religion? What if some future Congress decides that for-profit newspapers cannot offer anonymous editorial opinions because only private citizens should enjoy freedom of speech?

The Bee uses some specious examples in support of it's opinion, but the fact remains that offering contraceptive coverage is a political decision and assigning rights based on a company's legal structure is a dangerous game.

-- John F. Petkovich, Roseville

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Sacramento Bee Job listing powered by Careerbuilder.com
Quick Job Search
Sacramento Bee Jobs »
Used Cars
Dealer and private-party ads


Price Range:
Search within:
miles of ZIP

Advanced Search | 1982 & Older