This is in response to Silver Moore-Leamon’s letter, “Another view of the Kentucky issue” (Sept. 5). Moore-Leamon points out what should be obvious: the new fashion of claiming a “religious exemption” to following the law is a classic case of a slippery slope.

A founding principle of the United States is the separation of church and state. It implies that while every person is guaranteed freedom of religious expression, every person is required to adhere to the law.

Illustrating the slippery slope of religious exemptions to adhering to the law, Moore-Leamon wrote, “What if a government official refused to issue a gun permit on the religious grounds of pacifism?”

Sure enough, a Muslim airline stewardess was fired for refusing to serve an alcoholic beverage to a passenger because it was prohibited by her religion. She is now suing, claiming a religious exemption.

If religious beliefs are allowed as exemptions to following the law, who decides — and how do they decide — what is an acceptable exemption?

The Book of Leviticus, the third book of the Hebrew Bible, instructs followers to “not [let] your hair become unkempt,” with dire consequences if you do. Some may say that’s obviously silly; others may say it’s the Bible and they believe it.

The ultimate end of the slippery slope of exemptions is anarchy.

Regarding rights, doesn’t an employer have the right to dismiss an employee who does not fulfill their job description? Shouldn’t a job seeker only apply for jobs where they will perform their duties?

Jeff Christiansen, Gorham