I think there's some excellent support in the Bible for the idea that food should be given to the hungry, clothes to the naked, etc., which I believe translates to a general societal obligation to improve the lots of those toward the bottom of the income/wealth distribution. I feel like there's a lot less detail in the Bible about what sorts of birth control are acceptable.
Naturally, there are five members of the Supreme Court who feel a lot more comfortable about regulating birth control with respect to religious beliefs than regulating tax rates. (I'm just guessing here, but I suspect if I tried to bring a lawsuit against the US government because its tax rates violate my sincerely-held religious beliefs that there should be much less income inequality in the nation, I'd be shot down very fast.)
Of course, my diary title is a bit of strawman, but I think it's a useful strawman for a couple reasons:
1) Really, the basic gist of the Hobby Lobby decision appears to be that closely-held corporations are entitled to take certain actions based on certain Christian beliefs.
As Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said in her dissent, "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
And the thing is, the majority opinion has takes pains to point that only some sincerely-held religious beliefs will count. So what are the odds that non-Christian beliefs would be held to the Hobby Lobby standard? Again, just guessing here, but I'm going to peg the probability of that as very low.
2) There will be people who claim that their beliefs are different than mine, so how can the court be expected to rationally make a case that the whole country should be subject to my religious beliefs? My answer -- as much as I'd like to be able to win a lawsuit that makes the top marginal tax rate some appropriately high number -- is that that this is an area the Court needs to stay out of.
That last point goes both ways, of course. If people don't want to have their sincerely-held religious beliefs violated by regulation on business, those people are free to sell or otherwise divest themselves from the business -- that's the freedom of speech they're entitled to.
Otherwise their religious rights run the risk of trampling over others' sincerely-held religious beliefs.