The Supreme Court is political, and swims in the same political waters as Congress and, by extension, the rest of America. Roberts crafted a political compromise in Hobby Lobby: By making a (IMO) dubious distinction between a "privately held" corporation and those that are publicly held, he managed to satisfy the religious Right without giving the rest of corporate America carte blanche to pick and choose which aspects of Obamacare they'll implement.
It's dubious because Hobby Lobby is still a big corporation that operates stores in many states and does business on an interstate basis. The fact that Hobby Lobby is privately held doesn't make a difference to employees receiving salary, benefits or any other aspect of employment. Nor can Hobby Lobby require employees to sign affidavits that they support the owning family's religious beliefs and precepts as a condition of employment.
Ironically, Roberts cited the "commerce" clause in upholding Obamacare--another dubious way to achieve a political compromise.
Oh yes, it was such a nutty solution that 7 out of the 9 justices agreed that just because someone operates a business doesn't immediately mean the state can take away all of their rights. Only the two nuttiest justices expressed an opinion otherwise (Ginsburg and Sotomayor). Kagan and Breyer expressly didn't state that proposition.
The RFRA compelled this outcome. The Court is not a superlegislator, it does not weigh policies. If you really thought the grandiose, intentionally overbroad HHS reg was going to pass strict scrutiny, you were delusional. There isn't a single person in the universe that thought that was the "least restrictive" means to completing their goal without interfering with religious rights.
If you don't like this outcome, repeal RFRA (the product of Clinton and a democrat congress). But until you do, all this policy stuff, the whiny "what does their 401k invest in" garbage is weak, simple minded and extremely childish. Guess what guys? People have different beliefs than you. Even if you think they are stupid. They should be able to associate, employ and service who they want under these principles. You can go ahead and not like, attend or support Wheaton college or Hobby Lobby. Both you and the religious busineses can make arguments in civil society about the merits of your respective positions. Maybe you can convince them how stupid they are. That's called pluralism, diversity. At least before prog idiots like those posting above decide they can use the violence of the state to enact ends that they see as morally righteous. At least HL isn't asking to use that violence to force others to comply with their beliefs. The Progs in this scenario sound far more like the purtians to me.
