*shaking head*

[sexobon]

But this isn't about what the employer is doing, it's about what the employer is NOT doing; because, the employer is a conscientious objector. It's about one person's (employee) rights ending where another person's (employer) rights begin. Refraining from participating in actions unconscionable to the employer doesn't really even have to be grounded in religion; however, that's where it gains protected status. Sometimes it's employees who become conscientious objectors to something or another, like a soldier refusing to fight, and they are exempted from doing what they find to be unconscionable. It seems that all the Court is saying is that in the case of privately held businesses, this is where one constituent's rights end and another constituent's rights begin and that there isn't going to be a case by case burden of proof imposed by government because that would be infringing on the rights accorded that class of business in this regard.