Ben Levi
“However Liberal’s were ardently in favor of forcing Hobby Lobby to cover birth control in spite of their religious beliefs.”
So what? they were wrong, and that isnt how the court ruled
At any rate, Religious accommodation while important and protected under the constitution is not a be all end all.
My neighbor is an Amaleki he has a yichus brief tracing his lineage back to Amalek, there are eidim who testify to it, he even has a DNA test. I spoke to my Rav who said there is a mitzva to kill him. (I’m sure there are Rabbanim out there who are meikil but my Rav is very machmir on these things) This is my sincerly held religious belief. My lawyer however cautioned that my right to kill him would not be protected
sikhs have a religious mandate to carry a knife with them at all times (this is true unlike my first more ridiculous example). Their religion is not accommodated on airplanes.
Even Shabbos which is the part of the discussion that led to this path. While one of the posters was lying when he said that their is only one job that lets you keep Shabbos. The truth is if an employee’s Shabbos would cause “undue burden” on the employer the employee’s sincerly held religous beliefs does not have to be accommodated.
(Keep in mind that any accommodation exists at all is quite a liberal idea)
My point is that while other values are deemed by the courts to be more important than religous accommodation (namely, public safety, being non-discriminatory, or arguably providing basic healthcare), doesnt mean religous accommodation doesnt exist. and the court’s stance in the case you cite only proves that it does (even if it isnt as high un the totem pole as you’d like)