Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 14)

Q::  So what would happen if Hobby Lobby were to prevail?  I'm an atheist, I own a corporation and I happen to have an ethical belief that it's wrong to use generic drugs for some reason.  Would that count as a "religious belief" that is entitled to the same protection as the contraception issue?

Well, listen, although there is nobody planning to put me on the SCOTUS.  But IF somebody did, and I was on the Court, I would say, "of course you could make the same argument and you should be allowed to make the same argument." 

[For example,,,]

There are very liberal religious denominations that have been concerned about population growth for a long time.  [Hypothetically] They might suggest (I'm not sure that anyone has done this) from a theological viewpoint, "I'm not going to cover the birth costs of more than two children because I think it is morally irresponsible. It's ethically irresponsible for this country, that uses so much of the worlds resources to begin  with, to encourage people to have three kids, four kids or five kids."

That would be a religious based argument.  Arguably it should be taken into consideration as should the atheist argument that says (if one were constructed), "We're just not going to cover 'X'.  We're not going to allow 'X' cause we have an ethical objection to it."

Whether that would happen with the atheist claim, it's very hard to tell because so few of these cases are based on the idea - atheists bring a lot of cases - let me clarify this, but they don't necessarily bring them on behalf of only atheists.

When atheist groups take a position about a matter of separation of church and state, with very few exceptions (I can't really think of any right now), I would say, "right on, do it."  This is exactly the position Americans United for Separation of Church & State would take.  It is the same position I would hope the ACLU would take; and I hope a lot of religious groups who care about separation would take as well.

So atheists often file suits not just to just protest their own interests but to generate, or at lest help us prove there is and should be a decent distance between the institutions of religion and those of government in the United States.

[I think what Lynn was attempting to convey, although atheist are involved in many cases, their end goal is not just for the benefit of atheists but any individual or group who has similar separatist concerns.  It is not just and atheist agenda being pushed.]