Where/how in God's green earth did you construe that?
I read your words and applied their plain meaning.
"...religious beliefs should not matter when it comes to law."
Plain meaning being that religious beliefs are subservient to law and where the two clash, law will prevail. Forced provision of abortifacients against one's religion differs from prohibition of that religion's practice only in degree, not general principle.
If a business takes advantage of the benefits that government gives them (tax advantages, etc), then they also need to abide by the laws whether they feel it agrees or disagrees with the dogma of their religion.
How would you feel if all religious institutions lost their not for profit status/non profit status and had to start paying income and property taxes? Also means your tithing is not tax deductible any more.
Relief from taxation is not a "benefit" any more than a mob deciding not to loot a store guarded by its armed owner is a "benefit."
Also, not only does your post expose a lack of understanding of the first amendment and freedom of conscience, but it reveals a lack of understanding of power expressed in the COTUS. That being
power only respects other power. (It takes opposing power to limit power.)
In the COTUS, a very circumscribed set of powers is divided into three top level parts with at least two counterbalances. The first counterbalance being the states and their powers and the second being the vast civil realm where the gov't has no legitimate authority. Since the Roman empire crumbled in the West, the church was the greatest civil power that acted as a counter to gov't power. It was the only corporate entity with the juice to put a check on unbridled gov't power and provide a modicum of liberty untrampled by gov't. The church fought for its tax exempt status because it knew that if it could be taxed by gov't, it would become absolutely subject to gov't, no matter any other written or unwritten agreements.
Statists do not see dispersed, decentralized power as a feature, but a bug to be squashed or an obstacle to be overthrown on the path to their objective.
I would caution against letting your antipathy for Christianity and Christians blind you. Because today it may be Christianity getting buggered by gov't. But there is room enough in the barrel for all...and tomorrow it will be your faith (or particular lack of faith) that gets it good & hard.
Ok, if the Christian church xyz is excluded from providing birth control for its employees, then should be let Muslim mosque xyz practice Sharia law over US law because that is what the church believes?
Here is the thing you just don;t get: participation in a religious org or an org run by religious folks is voluntary. Adherents can leave. Employees can find work elsewhere and the org has no authority to coerce them. Your/gov't's impositions are mandatory and carry with them implied violence that persistent refusal to submit will result in agents of the gov't shooting citizens in the face.
