Religion is an attempt to define the unknowable: to place personality, qualities, and characteristics on that which cannot be explicitly qualified. Thus, no two religions will ever agree, because there is no way to prove whose interpretation of personality, qualities, and characteristics is right and whose is wrong. In the absence of this proof, all religions (even the lack of religion) are, by definition, simultaneously all right, and all wrong. In the absence of quantifiable data, one belief is no more correct, or incorrect, than any other belief.
By siding with one interpretation of religious personality, qualities, and characteristics over another, the Supreme Court is wading into dangerous waters. The proper place for a secular government is to ensure that all religions are treated equally, and that is best done by treating all religions the same. By siding with Hobby-Lobby in this case, they have not only given preferential treatment to the owners’ specific interpretation of religious personality, qualities, and characteristics, they have also conferred on that interpretation legitimacy that has now been taken from other religious interpretations. By making this decision, the Supreme Court has stated that no longer are all religions simultaneously all right and all wrong, but that this one interpretation is right, and all others are wrong.
It is easy to see that this is a very dangerous slippery slope, and one that can easily slide into state sponsored theocracy, which is the antithesis of the religious freedom the decision’s supporters are claiming victorious. When the government sides with one religion over another, it is doing what science cannot do: provide legitimacy to that which is based on the unknowable. That does not support religious freedom, but is, in fact an intolerance of it.