From the ashes.
Besides, I fail to see what business her reproductive issues are to the church. Hypocritical assholes the lot of them. Do they fire the women on staff who take the pill?
I would suggest to you that most people did not know that.
Currently, US law only grants an exception on the grounds of a organisation's religious rules. A secular organisation with an equally strong moral basis is not granted the same exception. Also, a religious individual running a secular organisation can be forced to act against their faith on the grounds of these laws.
The point is that the elected government of your states and country have determined that discriminating against individuals on the basis of certain characteristics is wrong, and is significant enough to impose laws preventing people and organisations from doing so.
If it's wrong, it's wrong. The fact some has a religious basis to their discrimination doesn't magically make it less wrong just as someone basis discrimination on a strong secular moral basis would. There is no moral justification for having a rule or law but adding "unless you're religious" at the end.
The constitutional issue doesn't change the morality question. Taking freedom of religion to it's logical conclusion, it would mean that no law can apply to any religious individual or organisation if they feel that following it goes against their religious beliefs. Obviously that is not how it is interpreted in practice which raises the difficult question of why it is applied to some laws but not others (and, if only indirectly, to some religions and not others).
I know it's a mortal sin to say so in America, but maybe the Constitution (at least as interpreted) is immoral.
"Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"
Dick Rowe, A & R man