Letters: Religion in the workplace

Re “Obeying religious rules — at work?,” Column, Oct. 30

I am deeply offended by this notion that company owners of particular religious persuasions demand altering federal rules on healthcare coverage to exclude abortion and contraception.

The nature of rights is the restriction of powers from the top for the protection of the people on the bottom. What these guys are demanding is the right to take away their employees’ right to the insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. What they are demanding is not a right but a license.

Since it is based on religion, employers of different faiths could demand other rights. A Jehovah’s Witnesses company could demand insurance that doesn’t cover transfusions. A Christian Science employer could want insurance that sends people to faith healers instead of doctors.

I’m honestly surprised that this has become a controversy.

Jon Kaplan

Los Angeles

The corporation as a “person” derives its power and its profits as a result of the work of the group of persons that it is.

A corporation is always referred to in the singular — for example, “it” sells insurance or whatever. As a singular entity, it has no right to force a singular religious value on its group of persons unless that group has voted democratically to do so.

Similarly, of course, corporations as “persons” should be allowed to contribute only as much money to a political campaign as a singular person is allowed — and even

then only to the campaign voted for by its “group of persons.”

Joanne Tatham

Irvine

ALSO:

Letters: From a surplus to deficits

Letters: City Council says no to integrity

Letters: Sebelius on the healthcare hot seat