I am personally awed by the power of religion to do good, and bad, to those that believe. But the question isn't really about respecting the tenets of a religion so much as questioning how far can those tenets be pushed on the non-religious that are, by circumstance, under the control of the religious. I'm all for the freedom of religion. I don't care about the particular tenet of this case, just the collision of religion and secular.   

I also acknowledge my view of the situation is as a common citizen, not a Supreme Court judge. So my comments should be taken that way.  On a commoner level, does it seem fine to you that a religious organization should try to prevent the government from telling a health insurer that it should provide reimbursement for contraception? It seems even more removed than a religious baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple. The Poor Sisters never see the contraceptives and don't see the transfer of money.