Ironically, with this comment you've taken another fringe position that puts you in direct conflict with your other fringe position, which is that there is no constitutionally-acknowledged distinction between churches and for-profit businesses that are not engaged in religious worship, teaching, advocacy, etc. Because while, on the one hand, you think the government should steer clear of imposing burdens on religous practices, you apparently believe that the government retains some role in determining just what constitutes a bona fide "religious practice" worthy of deference in the first place, thereby inviting the government to take an even more intrusive role in religious life than any currently threatened by the contraceptive mandate.

I mean, I get why you take this position. You must, on some level, appreciate that your extreme views on impermissible infringement practically invites people to come up with religious objections to all kinds of laws. But how you can view the government deciding whether Hobby Lobby's objection to the employer mandate is legitimately and sincerely based on religious belief as more consonant with the First Amendment than just telling them to comply with a law that applies to them completely escapes me.