*shaking head*

[henry quirk]

"Repugnant is an emotion."

I wrote 'morally repugnant' which, to my mind, is part and parcel with 'religious objection'.

*shrug*

#

"Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees."

No.

The SC said the owners of a tightly owned/closely held company can refuse to pay (in part or in total) for services or products they, the owners, have a religious objection to.

The HL folks are evangelicals...the ruling imposes no obligations on, for example, an atheist to 'do' things the HL folks find religiously acceptable...the ruling only says the atheist 'can't' make the HL folks pay for (in part or in total) services or products the HL folks object to on religious grounds.

That's it...that's all.

There may be unintended consequences because of the ruling (as opportunists try to twist the ruling to suit themselves), but the ruling itself is unambiguous.