In response to the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, many have doubted the fairness of this country’s justice system. But it’s not our court system that is broken – it’s our health care system.

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitution – its primary responsibility – last week when it ruled in favor of the arts and crafts corporation. And it’s wrong to assume the justices simply share the religious views of the business’s owners, a Christian family.

The Constitution is the law that supersedes all others in this country, regardless of whether individuals feel that the religious protection written into it is inappropriate in the modern age. The First Amendment states that no law may infringe upon the rights of anyone to exercise his or her religious freedom.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, mandates that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless doing so is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest.

This already has been the grounds for exemption from other religious and non-profit organizations, but, to paraphrase Justice Samuel Alito, there is no difference between a non-profit and a closely owned for-profit company.

However, the debate surrounding Hobby Lobby is based on three very separate issues: religious freedom, women’s rights and health insurance tied to employers.

The Supreme Court ruling is based on religious freedom and is correct. The other issues are important but were not part of this particular case.

Women’s rights indeed have been affected, but this is not to say that women are now “denied” access to birth control. Although they now must be more creative to obtain it, birth control is extremely accessible through programs like Planned Parenthood and other clinics and healthcare facilities.

The fact is that women would face this issue regardless of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The corporation never would have provided certain measures of contraception and instead would have opted for a fine of more than $400 million per year.

The last issue poses questions that the rest of the world is asking: Why is American health care still tied to employers? Shouldn’t that be the obligation of the employee? Or, in this day of total government dependency, something the government should offer?

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research this system dates back to World War II, when offering benefits wasn’t considered a wage increase and so the practice was adopted to attract high-quality employees.

Per the Restoration Act, all objections must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. What fun.

If insurance coverage was no longer tied to employers, who aren’t always in business just for the money but also due to a desire for their businesses to reflect their own values, the cost and time of many unnecessary cases would be avoidable.

Business owners have always decided what they will and will not cover. What has changed is that the authors of the Affordable Care Act sought to dictate how owners can run their businesses.

More litigation, anyone? Many issues are at stake here and can be argued – all of which highlight that we are yet to figure out how to run our health care system. But the Supreme Court cannot forsake the Constitution, nor would we want it to.