Yet Justice Ginsburg characterized the decision as one of “startling breadth.” This would have been an accurate description if the majority had held that, as the dissent baselessly declared, “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith.”

Unfortunately, Ginsburg’s gross misstatement of the court’s opinion appears to have been taken as gospel not only by Democratic politicians and liberal bloggers, but by establishment journalists who ought to know better.

A New York Times editorial preposterously proclaimed that Hobby Lobby gave “owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.” Yet the decision in no way affected the religious views of employees. It left their conduct unaffected as well.

Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus asserted that “the interests of the contraceptive users are almost entirely absent from the majority opinion.” Her explanation was that the five men who signed it lack uteruses.