Letters: What Venice and Obamacare have in common

Re “Taming the boardwalk,” March 26

Iread about some of the “artists, the homeless, Silicon Beach hipsters, surfers, inline skaters and tourists” all coming together on the “circus-like boardwalk” of Venice, and I thought, “Strange but nice.”

Then I read about our conservative-controlled Supreme Court and arguments about Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide contraceptives to women — many of whom are probably already taking them — and the thought crossed my mind: Just who is strange?

Allen F. Dziuk

Carlsbad

Re “Court looks kindly on test of health act,” March 26

Assuming for the moment that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority goes ahead and allows employers to refuse contraceptive care for employees on religious grounds, will there be some sort of test of faith for the employers to make sure they aren’t just cutting costs?

For example, we know that many business owners go to church on a regular basis, but surely that is never enough by itself to qualify them as honest Christians. If the employer gets an exemption but sins in his or her daily life, would he or she lose the exemption? Do all religions qualify for the exemption, even if this involves claims by heretics and infidels?

How will the corporation express its faith? Do all the board members have to be validly and acceptably religious, or will there just be a chief religious officer?

Philip Brimble

Los Angeles

How the Supreme Court can look kindly on a case that would destroy the basic American principle of separation of church and state is beyond me.

This is a case brought in order to refuse birth control to people who do not share an employer’s belief system, but the implications are much larger and more poisonous.

If your employer is against blood transfusions, would those be forbidden? If adherents used only prayer to treat sickness — well, just think of the money insurance companies could save.

This court cannot be trusted to make the correct decision.

Alix Fargo

Altadena

Re “Unfair to Obamacare,” Editorial, March 25

The Times criticizes opponents of Obamacare who attack the law in court because the law appears to have been “inartfully written.” But people have no obligation to support a law they think is harmful, and they are perfectly within their rights to question it on any legal basis.

Obamacare was jammed through so fast, who really had a chance to read it?

If a law is poorly written, amend it.

Victor Salazzo

Los Angeles

I believe the management of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties should make it clear that they want only customers who present sworn affidavits indicating that they, or any relation, have never used any form of contraception — and then be prepared to close their doors.

Martin J. Weisman

Westlake Village

Aside from the obvious reasons for a rejection of this suit as far as freedom, equality, constitutionality and fairness, another reason for access to birth control is the growing worldwide population and the path we are on to do ourselves in rather soon. Why aren’t we more concerned about this threat?

But if corporations do end up being able to dictate birth control use, employees should take back their freedom to choose, demand what wages they’ve contributed to the company’s health insurance plan and use the money to buy Obamacare policies.

Joanne Tatham

Irvine

ALSO:

Mailbag: The ABCs of the SAT

Letters: Kim Pham’s sad story

Letters: Deserts deserve protection too