You can now read 5 articles in a month for free on BostonGlobe.com. Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

Letters | MEASURING THE REACH OF THE HOBBY LOBBY DECISION

Justices set up a slippery slope in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Demonstrators protested outside a store in Edmond, Okla., June 30 in opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Sue Ogrocki/Associated Press

Demonstrators protested outside a store in Edmond, Okla., June 30 in opposition to the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Much is being debated about the exemption granted to “believers” to opt out of laws they find contrary to their religious beliefs (“Supreme Court loses its way in vague contraceptive decision,” Editorial, July 1). There’s another argument that has yet to appear. While the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision carves out a way for believers to be exempt from laws that violate their religious beliefs, it also denies the same rights and equal protection to those whose objections, in seeking a similar exemption, may be based on moral or philosophical beliefs.

In the mid-1970s, I served on the Selective Service Commission (the draft board) and later the appeals section. Although the Vietnam War was winding down, the commission was still active in determining draft status. Many young men sought exemption from the draft as conscientious objectors. To qualify, one was required to demonstrate a belief in God. Over time, the rules were changed, allowing an exemption to all who claimed and could prove their objection to military service, whether based on religious, moral, or ethical grounds.

Continue reading below

Now the Supreme Court has tied itself into a knot, and the way out is difficult. By claiming that this is a narrow decision, limited only to health care, it still privileges believers over nonbelievers.

To extend the exemption to both believers and nonbelievers would raise deeper questions. Could anyone, person or corporation, now claim exemption from any law they oppose on religious, moral, or philosophical grounds? If so, then what happens to the rule of law?

Theodore A. Johnson

Waltham

The writer is an assistant professor in the coexistence and conflict program at the Heller School of Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University.

Loading comments...
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Already a subscriber?
Your city. Your stories. Your Globe.
Yours FREE for two weeks.
Enjoy free unlimited access to Globe.com for the next two weeks.
Limited time only - No credit card required!
BostonGlobe.com complimentary digital access has been provided to you, without a subscription, for free starting today and ending in 14 days. After the free trial period, your free BostonGlobe.com digital access will stop immediately unless you sign up for BostonGlobe.com digital subscription. Current print and digital subscribers are not eligible for the free trial.
Thanks & Welcome to Globe.com
You now have unlimited access for the next two weeks.
BostonGlobe.com complimentary digital access has been provided to you, without a subscription, for free starting today and ending in 14 days. After the free trial period, your free BostonGlobe.com digital access will stop immediately unless you sign up for BostonGlobe.com digital subscription. Current print and digital subscribers are not eligible for the free trial.