Religious liberty, religious imposition, and (sigh) contraception

So an initial caveat first: strictly speaking denying insurance coverage is not the same as denying someone obtaining a medical service. In the case of contraceptive coverage, most (but not all ) individuals can probably pay for contraception themselves. Whether the folks for whom such a burden is financially difficult justifies governmental actions is a matter that can certainly be discussed.

That said … on the flip side the idea that paying by mandate (essentially a tax) for something you morally object to is a violation of your religious liberty is, frankly, ludicrous.  It is well-established law, for example, that people who object to spending on war and military cannot simply decline to pay their taxes in whole or in part.

To encourage such a position means (for example) people who find racial intermingling to be against the intent of the Almighty should be able to discriminate against such couples (or resulting individuals), and those who believe non-Christians (or non-correct-sect-of-Christians) are actually doomed to perdition and thus can be treated differently from the rest of society in matters of employment, accommodation, etc.

It's allowing religious preference to define who's really a citizen and who's not.  Which strikes me as the opposite of religious liberty.