As an attorney, I appreciate Adam Winkler's straightforward breakdown of this issue:
Religious liberty is certainly appropriate for some not-for-profit corporations, like churches or nonprofits with a religious mission. If Hobby Lobby’s owners wanted to form such an organization, there was a convenient and readily available option: They could have incorporated as a nonprofit. They wouldn't be able to make the same kind of money, but they’d have a corporation with an explicitly religious mission. And under the Affordable Care Act, they’d be exempted from the birth control requirement.
Hobby Lobby’s owners, however, formed a business corporation. By asking the Supreme Court to let them enjoy all the protections of this corporate form, but not all of its duties, Hobby Lobby’s owners want to have their corporate cake and eat it, too.
In addition to the Constitutional issues, permitting an employer to dictate what type of medical treatment and preventative care you receive based on his or her religious principles sets a dangerous precedent. If Hobby Lobby can prevent you from obtaining affordable birth control, what's to stop a corporation owned and run by Jehovah's Witnesses from preventing you or your loved one from undergoing a life-saving blood transfusion? Where does it end?