I don’t want to fully comment on the case because:
1.) I believe SCOTUS is actually the “decider-in-chief” of the constitutionality of laws,
2.) From the few summaries I’ve read, the decision is a logical one based on current case law and common law precedents.
However, from what I’ve also read the majority opinion leaves open some pretty windy doors.
I can find no better editorial expressing these concerns than the one in USA Today:
The majority said the ruling doesn’t “necessarily” mean companies can expect exemptions from other medical care barred by various faiths, such as blood transfusions, vaccinations, psychiatric care or even medical care itself. But it did not directly rule out such claims. And while the court warned companies that they shouldn’t expect to be able to assert a religious right to escape taxation or anti-discrimination laws, it left the door open for companies to challenge virtually any other law on religious grounds.
If a privately-owned company decides something is against their religious views, there is a strong possibility that their view and not the law of the land will hold sway.
If this doesn’t bother you, you aren’t reading Rushdooney and other neo-Confederates who espouse some form of Reformed theology hiding their white nationalism. If they are able to take this crack in the door and swing it open according to their beliefs, we will simply end up where they want us to – a theocracy. Not one, but many – grouped around centers of power (such as corporations).
Yes, we should hold up religious freedom but only to the extent it infringes on someone else. I also believe we should uphold religious freedom for private individuals until they become the arbiter of public enterprises. In other words, I find it rather difficult to apply religious freedom to corporations, private or not especially when they are as large as Hobby Lobby.