It's odd how the definition of religious freedom has evolved over the years. It used to be that the state, and therefore the people, were protected from religion (as in, the government can't sponsor a religion). It seems now that we think that the primary goal of religious freedom is to protect religions from the government. I'm all for individuals being able to practice whatever they want, but I can't abide my tax dollars supporting religious nuts. It makes my skin crawl to know that we subsidize these places via their tax exemptions, but to extend that to a corporation is a new low. All corporations benefit from our collective support (the infamous "You didn't build that" that the GOP jumped all over), so to let them off the hook from a specific law because it 'feels' wrong to them is unconscionable. Fuck you. Go into the ministry if you want special treatment. Don't go into business if you don't want to abide by the covenant that society has crafted with business. Unfortunately, the Roberts court has shown no shame when it comes to right wing activism (which is obviously a thing, despite their talking points). If letting business do what they please based on the religion of the owner is legislating from the bench (as there is no precedent for such disrespect for law), then I clearly have no idea what judicial activism is.