So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[FatAndFaithless]

It's not so much that Hobby Lobby is 'religious' corporation as a whole, it's just that it's owners and shareholders (very few in number and nearly all in the same family) have their religious beliefs. The decision says that the law cannot force them to provide insurance (i.e. spend their money) for the morning after pill because they are exercising their religious freedom.

Well it is clearly objection of conscience. The decision of the american court (supreme or whatever, I don't know the name) was the right one according to legality, I'm 100% sure of this. It sucks, it may be unethical and stupid, but this is the way the law works, even though I have my doubts against objection of conscience for religious reasons being taken so far. Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith? Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay? Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)? It seems to me this is going to far and it collides with national health and family planning. As someone who wishes to be a judge, and since my atheism will have 0 relevance to my decisions (principle of impartiality) I can't tell you what my decision would be in this case, considering the current laws and principles of the constitution.

Taking your points in order (to the best of my knowledge anyway)
1)Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith?

No. There are federal non-discrimination laws on the books that prevent employment judgment based on gender, sexuality, race, religion...and a couple other protected statuses (can't remember them all off the top of my head). Certain states have proposed laws that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people or atheists based on relgious grounds, such as in Arizona (but that vetoed by their governor), and I think Oklahoma is trying another one of those bills. I doubt any of those would get anywhere though, since that would mean people could deny service to Christians too.

2)Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay?

As far as I'm aware, no. The Hippocratic oath makes doctors beholden to provide treatment to everyone. As far as a hospital goes however, they can decline to use certain treatments or drugs based on religious objections, but as far as I'm aware an individual doctor cannot.

3)Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)?

No, that's just silly.

---

Bleh, at least their decision was very narrowly defined, i.e. specifically only for the morning after pill (I believe), so Jehovah's Witnesses can't refuse blood transfusions, Catholics can't refuse condoms, etc.

Yes, that's good...but it's unclear what reasoning allows them to allow Hobby Lobby to evade covering certain types of birth control, that doesn't apply to a Jehovah's Witness business owner not being able to do the same. At first glance, the reasoning seems to be based on none of the justices being a JW.

I think the big part is that not providing funding for a morning after pill doesnt act against the interest of the government, seeing as it's a non-essental, non-emergency contraceptive that doesn't really prevent any sort of disease, whereas blood transfusions are a treatment in and of themselves, and restricting those would be denying treatment.