My prediction: First major use of Hobby Lobby precedent.
Anyone who's been following the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood case knows of a curious anomaly: insurance companies save money when they provide comprehensive coverage of contraceptives because they end up covering the cost of fewer pregnancies. This is why, I believe, that very few companies will leap at the chance to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees: the insurance companies will, sooner or later, find a way to pass on the increased costs of not providing coverage of contraceptives.
That's not true for other possible religion-based reasons for withholding healthcare coverage and I think this is one is very plausible and will happen really soon: what if employers say they have religious reasons for not covering same-sex spouses, their children, and any children adopted by a same-sex couple? Can't be subsidizing sin, y'know. There's some real money to be saved there if a company employs even a few same-sex married couples.
= new reply since forum marked as read
