Protect moral objections
Brian C. Hall | Thursday, March 27, 2014
Sean Long’s column, “Protect religious freedom,” (March 25) is factually incorrect when it says “the Supreme Court must only decide whether the contraception mandate is constitutional.” The court must also decide whether the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Congress passed by nearly unanimous votes in 1993. Hobby Lobby is far more likely to win its case under that act than on constitutional grounds.
Meanwhile, I find it astonishing Long would argue, “the case is not about contraceptives” because “use occurs in both scenarios.” There is a world of difference, morally, between someone committing an act another person considers immoral and the government compelling the other person to pay for the act. If the government compels Hobby Lobby to pay for types of contraception it finds objectionable, then whether or not the contraception would otherwise be used, the government is making Hobby Lobby complicit in something the company considers immoral.
Brian C. Hall
professor of mathematics
The views expressed in this Letter to the Editor are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.