Joseph Reisert’s March 21 column, “Corporations run by devout families should have religious protection,” like most of his columns, truthfully points out the facts in the debate between those who believe their religion is the primary source of justification for our laws and those who recognize that laws should apply to everyone equally.

I won’t go into the foolish assumption by many that this country was founded by Christian gentlemen who respected the religious beliefs of the time (Anglican beliefs, in the main), or the problem inherent in his argument, because one in every four Americans is not Christian.

Reisert points out that our government has made exceptional exemptions for religious organizations and privately held businesses. Not satisfied, he joins the religious chorus attempting to push the envelope further.

Failing to recognize the slippery slope that leads to a chasm of problems, Reisert suggests that everyone providing medical coverage for employees should be able to pick and choose which benefits are included according to their religious beliefs. What then is the difference between this insurance issue and other religious issues that business owners have. Should a privately held business, or a business run by someone without employees who serves the public, be able to choose who they serve based on their religious beliefs?

The lives of people of color were controlled for hundreds of years by men who quoted Bible verses as justification. And the Lord knows plenty of people in this country still feel the same way.

Should gay and lesbian individuals automatically be dropped from employment consideration, or from their existing jobs, because of the employer’s religious beliefs? Space limits me from providing additional examples.

I personally have met more conscientious people in government than I have seen or read about in the business world.

Paul W. DutramWaterville