Employers should not be penalized for their conscience

Published:

Regarding the Dec. 8 reprinted opinion piece, "Do corporations have religious rights, too?" we note that corporations have long been recognized as persons in the legal sense. Moreover, corporations are owned and run by individuals.

The First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion permits individuals to run their businesses in accord with their moral and religious beliefs. The Obama administration is seeking to impose its moral and religious values on large employers by requiring them to cover the costs of contraceptives, abortifacient drugs and devices, and sterilization.

The opinion's author states, "...these owners seek indirectly to impose their own religious beliefs on their employees by dictating which legal family planning methods they can use." Nonsense. Employees are free to use any family planning method they choose. Employers are simply asking them to pay for those methods that violate the employer's conscience.

Individuals are free to work for whichever employer they choose and to buy whatever family planning materials and services they believe to be morally acceptable. Employers should not be forced to pay for things that violate their consciences and to suffer bankrupting financial penalties if they fail to do so.

Raymond J. Adamek, Kent

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • Excellent letter. Progressives will impose their will on everyone while exempting themselves. Remember, socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

  • The individuals that run or own large corporations have to answer to many people whether that be board members, stockholders, etc. Their personal religious beliefs do not factor in on these decisions. They make decisions often that should violate their conscience but does not. It is understandable that they do not want to pay for these additional items in their health care plans but let's not hide their reasoning behind morality. It is about profitability and profitability only.

  • Excellent letter. I agree completely.

    Shame on the Record-Courier for refusing to allow public web comments on the article in question.

    And shame on the Record-Courier for publishing that article in the first place, since it was filled with outright lies.