In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
The five justices that ruled for Hobby Lobby and the others assume that person here includes corporations–in other words, they assume corporations can practice religion.
They also rule that we should have single-payer:
The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections.
I agree. Now if we can only get Congress to pass such an act, –I’m sure it will be passed any time now.
Also, the court says this doesn’t apply to much else but with a wink:
In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.
Notice that little may: “Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported …”. Thus, this court is saying that it’s possible that a corporation may be able to drop an immunization requirement if they can make a good argument (an argument that these five justices agree with really). I wonder what other things we’ll later find do not have to be supplied.