Why Hobby Lobby won't have to shut down

Here is where my inner nerd and love for Constitutional Law comes out! 
As a lover and supporter of all things controversial (usually,) Constitutional Law (I & II) turned out to be my two favorite, most challenging, classes in college. I kept these 1,000 page books and at the time I had no idea why. Now I do. I have so many marginal notes and highlights throughout every page of these two books that you'd think I bought them used. Well, I didn't. I'm browsing Facebook, as I do every day, and come across the Hobby Lobby article floating around. The light goes off in my head and I take action and drag out those Con Law books I love so much to let my followers now why they don't need to panic. Or perhaps why they should provided a little legal knowledge.
I am going to attempt to give my legal viewpoint of why Hobby Lobby can win this case, based on former Supreme Court decisions based on the opposite of what Hobby Lobby's case is. In a nutshell, a new government healthcare mandate wants Hobby Lobby's insurance/health plan to cover "emergency contraceptives," such as the morning-after and week-after pill. As a Christian based company it is against their religious beliefs to support such a pill.  
From a legal standpoint, here is why Hobby Lobby won't be closing down, folks:

• Hobby Lobby has, "with great reluctance," filed suit to a federal court in request to stop the mandate. I'm not saying Hobby Lobby is going to win because they've filed a suit, that doesn't mean bologna in the system. However, if they lose at whichever court they initially filed, there is no doubt in my mind this case could go to the Supreme Court (if it isn't settled at the district courts first.) For those who find the whole court system, branches of government, etc., extremely complicated (as I do,) this website can help! 
• This case could potentially become the first, of many, from this new government health mandate (which most likely stems from Obama care, but don't take my word because I haven't researched that much.) 
• The American people, the media and the Supreme Court love these types of controversial cases. Here are some former cases that are semi-oppositely related to Hobby Lobby's case, but could potentially help them. 
• Poe v. Ullman (1960)- This case was dismissed by The Supreme Court, however, was significant in future cases regarding the use and selling of contraceptives. 
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - In this case, a Connecticut law prohibited medical contraceptives, even the counseling of use, a criminal act: for married couples. Thanks to the Bill of Rights and the right to privacy, the Connecticut law was overturned.
• Since Roe v. Wade (1971,)  to date probably one of the most controversial cases in Supreme Court history, the issue of abortion has become a key player in politics. Being pro-life or pro-choice is an everyday question that is the root of many discussions and conflicts. In this Supreme Court decision, the privacy act established in Griswold v. Connecticut was put to use. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment...., is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Before the case of Roe v. Wade, pregnancies were only allowed to be terminated if the mother's life was in danger. 
• So, historically, all the above listed cases are foundations for other cases regarding the use, selling and counsel of contraceptives and the legal acceptance of abortion. Although it is 2014 and these cases seem ancient, they are helpful. I don't know that Hobby Lobby would choose to directly use them in their argument, but, they provide hope. 

Here is how it breaks down. Basically, the Constitution and anything pertinent to this country and its government was founded on our forefather's religious beliefs. If you don't believe that then you have obviously never read any historic document or a letter written by George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Were the forefather's beliefs right in today's standards? Absolutely not, and that is why our Constitution has Amendments that change with the times. Were our forefather's wrong? Not entirely, but they lived hundreds of years ago and America has come a long way from The Revolutionary War, tacky wigs, and ink-dipped feather pens.
I say all of that to say, if the above listed cases can be passed because of religion (in a sense), Hobby Lobby's case could allow them to be omitted from the healthcare mandate for the same purposes. Religious cases are a continually recurring issue in the Supreme Court, yet every one is examined differently. 

On a personal basis, here is why I see Hobby Lobby coming through:

• They are a Christian-founded, family-owned business. Yes, they are a huge company now, but they stick to what they believe. 
• I don't support religious persecution, but I don't believe a government has the right to make demands and force a company to diss their beliefs because the government deems it fit.
• If you've ever been to a Hobby Lobby you know they are a Christian-based organization for two reasons: 
• They are always playing Christian music, mostly old hymns or newer renditions of old hymns. 
• Secondly, they are never opened on Sundays and you know it even though you drive half way across town before you realize it. 

• If you work anywhere and you seriously want your insurance to cover, over-the-counter, morning-after or week-after pills, you are absurd. I am pro-choice, but that's a bit tacky in my opinion. 
• I am pro-choice, but as I said, I don't approve the government butting into a company like Hobby Lobby expecting them to abide by this mandate. Morning-after pills are completely different from other forms of contraception. Get real people!