As I posted to another person earlier, Ginsburg's dissent expresses my fear of establishment of religion in this case...
Originally Posted by jimbo
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
The scotus has fabricated a precedent where all the lower courts are now supposed to be bound by in future rulings regarding religion opting out of law... for whatever religious reason. If the scotus and the lower courts do not rule consistently on this from religion to religion regardless of any bias that that religion claims that they can now bring to the fore... then the courts are making an establishment of religion.
It's a pick your poison situation now. Either stand by this ruling and consistently let any religious discrimination trump law, or have the courts ignore this precedent and just make **** up willy nilly... which has the side effect of saying it only applies to the one religion... violating the establishment clause.
Either way sucks terribly and both ways can arguably be unconstitutional.