To be truthful I think my comment essentially takes a line out of yours and expounds on why that's problematic in my mind. It's this part I find interesting and would like to hear more about your opinions on if you want - I feel like I don't have the knowledge or context to provide commentary on this issue: This decision is less about women's rights than it is about the further degradation of the separation of church and state. Scalia and Thomas especially seem hell bent on merging a specific version of Christianity into the fabric of the Constitution, and all in the name of 'originalism'.
I can't articulate nearly as well as this, so why try? Edit: I should really temper some of my language. Although 'originalism' is the rallying cry of the extreme Right, this isn't a constitutional case. It's actually a statutory case, which interpreted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to get the result. An act of Congress could, therefore, overrule this decision.