Get some perspective, people.
The court noted that there are ways to provide contraceptive coverage that allow employers to protect their delicate monies (it's money that matters!) from the corruption of buying such a sinful thing as certain contraceptive products (Hobby Lobby didn't object to contraceptives in general, just to four its owners completely misunderstand. But hey, that's religious belief! Right? That sound you hear is Aquinas, spinning in his grave....).
It does privilege certain religious beliefs above others; and that's the problem with the ruling. But it doesn't, by itself, "hurt" religious believers, especially Christians who might, for a variety of reasons, be critical of the ruling (I agree with the statement at TP that a "business" cannot be "Christian," any more than a nation can. It's a pity Alito was not a student of Reinhold Niebuhr, I suppose.)
And as long as I'm picking on reactions to this holding, Eric Posner is just dead wrong. Justice Ginsburg's dissent is a better response to him than anything I can write, though, so I'll leave Posner at that. He misreads the dissent so badly I suspect he got the Cliff Notes version of it, rather than read the original.
This is, in the end, a bad interpretation of a bad statute. It can be fixed, provided we get a Congress ready, willing, and able to do so. All that needs to be done is to clarify the definition of "person" in RFRA. Of course, as of today Congress isn't even ready, willing, and able to respond to the crisis along our Mexican border, so I hold no hope at all they will respond to this, except to cheer it in their ignorance.
Besides, consider the holding and the dicta quoted from Alito's opinion in the post below. Corporations enjoy the legal fiction of not being their owners, for tax as well as liability purposes. "Pierce" that "corporate veil," as the lawyers say, and the owners are suddenly liable for what that corporation has done. This often happens with closely held corporations, never with publicly owned ones (or almost never). But this opinion says closely-held corporations aren't corporations at all, but the owners. And if that opinion can be applied to publicly held corporations (and why not, the dissent says? Because Alito says you shouldn't?), then corporations cease to exist.
There will probably be a great deal more to this opinion than Alito and the majority meant there to be. If you doubt it, consider how many courts have used Scalia's dissent to hold that there is no justification for states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.
So, be careful what you ask for. As things now stand, Hobby Lobby no longer exists as a corporation; it is so identified, by this opinion, with the personal interests of its owners that it might as well be a partnership. It is dubious how many closely held corporations, like Dell or Whole Foods or Koch Industries, are going to identify with the religious beliefs, if any, of their owners; but it is clear from this opinion that any distinction between the owners and their corporation, is an easily erasable one, if not entirely non-existent now.
And that may be the real impact of this decision.