From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).
I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd. If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?
Probably because in theses cases it's not simply a majority. Hobby Lobby is 100% controlled by people who support this decision.
They're basically saying there's such a thing as a for-profit religious organization. I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Could Hobby Lobby or a similar company sue for tax exempt status now? This could come back to bite the court.
