JT, Yes! Corporate personhood is the bigger issue at stake here. Citizens United opened that door and now a corporation's so-called "religious beliefs" have trumped the rights of actual individuals.
This SCOTUS is out of control.
WHY THE HOBBY LOBBY RULING IS YOUR PROBLEM AND MY PROBLEM
Until now it never occurred to me to worry about my employer's religious views. Now we all have to.
By Chris Tomlinson on July 3, 2014

Getty Images
This op-ed column was originally published in the Houston Chronicle. Follow the author on Twitter.
I may have made a horrible mistake in becoming the Houston Chronicle's business columnist.
The Chronicle is owned by Hearst Corp., a privately held company based in New York, and I didn't first vet the owners' religious beliefs before I accepted the position.
Stupid me, I didn't realize that a for-profit corporation could impose its religious values by deciding which federally-required benefits I receive. Until now it never occurred to me to worry about my employer's religious views. Now we all have to.
Much of the outrage over the Hobby Lobby decision has rightfully focused on women's rights, and the idea that a corporation's religious freedom trumps a woman's right to fair and equal treatment under the law is astonishing, but there are other insidious aspects to this case that we need to worry about. Here's what Shannon Minte, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights said:
"The majority's holding that closely held corporations can claim religious liberty protections designed for individuals and can rely on those protections to avoid complying with generally applicable laws is a dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers."
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court decision today in the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Samuel Alito has cracked open the door for Hearst - or any private company - to decide it's religious beliefs prevent it from supplying any form of health insurance or retirement plan. Or maybe, the company will conclude the 40-hour work week is immoral because it promotes sloth, the third cardinal sin.
Of course, those are extreme cases and Hearst won't do any of those things. But those are the kinds of extreme cases that Supreme Court decisions are supposed to allow for. Alito tried to write the decision as narrowly as possible, but so did Justice Anthony Kennedy when he threw out the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy's "narrow" decision opened the door to dozens of gay marriage lawsuits. Alito's decision may be a narrow decision, but it won't necessarily stay that way.
Brace yourself for some cost-cutting, suddenly religious CEO to use today's decision to justify all kinds of exploitative practices. Or now that a corporation can be religious, something Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and I thought was limited to people, will we have boards of directors meetings where they vote on the company's official religion? This decision opens the door to hundreds of new legal questions that activists will scurry to test with new lawsuits.
Perhaps what worries me most is the growing division in American society between the religious and the non-religious. We are literally moving away from one another, living in different states, cities and neighborhoods. We elected politicians who think their job is to annihilate the opposition rather than reach compromise. Now we may end up dividing up along employer lines.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/horrible-mistake-hobby