Frederick Mark Gedicks’s Jan. 20 op-ed, “Paying for the boss’s beliefs,” contained an astounding qualification. He wrote, “To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others.”

Would Mr. Gedicks argue that the right of free speech, the right to vote, the right to a jury trial in a criminal case, the right against cruel and unusual punishment and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures be limited only to those situations in which the exercise of the right does not impose “significant burdens on others”? In some cases, such a qualification would eliminate the right altogether. For example, the right to trial by jury always imposes a “significant burden on others” — the people called to sit on juries.

There are no “but only” qualifiers in the Bill of Rights, nor should there be.

Vincent A. Jankoski,

Silver Spring

I’m not sure I understand the difference between an employee using his or her health-care benefits to obtain contraception and using his or her paycheck to do so. Same source. Six of one, half-dozen of another in my book.

Anne Thomas, Louisville