As I understand the ruling - and I'm not a lawyer - the response rests on the grounds that the Government can achieve its ends without requiring Hobby Lobby and Constanegoa Lumber to provide those four forms of Birth Control. If the Government wants woman to have access to those forms of birth control, they can do so outside of the insurance provided by Hobby Lobby. I guess that if the Government had a compelling reason to want to see Jew's or blacks to have access to the same sorts of opportunities that whites do, they can't just provide those jobs themselves - they would be separate, and the doctrine of separate is inheriently not equal would come into it.

It's being criticized for being poorly thought out and narrowly written (and it strikes me so too), but the intention at the moment seems clear. Whether it can be twisted in the future, it strikes me it almost certainly can.

Actually I just came to a paragraph that directly addresses that.

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post, at 32–33. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

Following its "logic", it's easy to see how a Scientologist corporation could deny coverage for psychiatric care or a Christian Scientist corporation could deny coverage for damn near everything.

Poor reasoning. Poor jurisprudence. Failure all around.