Rights different from mandates

03/25/2014 11:03 AM

03/27/2014 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

Editor's Choice Videos

 

Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service