It might be difficult for "pious" closely-held family corporations to out-and-out discriminate against hiring or retaining gay employees. But I'd be willing to be there are at least five SCOTUS justices who would see the below example as something perfectly allowable as part of the protection of corporate religious beliefs.
E.g., "We love Bob, he's a great employee, and, of course, his being gay in no way impacts his work. But we simply cannot countenance our corporate funds going to support his immoral 'marriage' without feeling that we're being compelled to violate our religious beliefs."
Reshared post from +J Caprioli
In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, I'm now waiting for the floodgates to open of employers attempting to deny spousal benefits to same sex couples because same sex marriage violates their religious beliefs. What a Pandora's box the Supreme Court has opened.
103 view(s)
It's especially tricky because some of these things (or perhaps all of them, come to think of it) have both political and religious ramifications. In many cases, it's legal to discriminate against someone because of political views held by the person.
+John E. Bredehoft The clear down side to campaign contribution transparency.