Yes, the ruling is limited to UIDs and Plan B, but if you are a woman who is unable to use a hormonal option, or if a non-banned method fails and you need to use Plan B, you are stuck to paying out of pocket for something that every other woman has covered by law. And don't think that self-payment is not a hardship, as an IUD can cost an entire month's Hobby Lobby salary.

In other news, I think I'm going to start my own business. If I convert to Jehova's Witness, I don't have to pay for blood transfusions. If I convert to Scientology, I can refuse to pay for any mental health benefits. If I convert to Pentecostal, I can bring poisonous snakes to work for my staff to use. If I convert to Islam, I don't need to provide food breaks during Ramadan. If I convert to Christian Scientist, I don't have to do a fucking thing! Yay market economy!!!

Going to the supreme court with a case isn't just a ruling for that particular issue, it is about the precedent that is set for all future cases. The legal arguments used can now be used by anyone else in order to limit their involvement in birth control, or any manner of other things that someone may find "objectionable."

Sorry Waferdog, but I"m going to have to play the "vag" card on ya here.
You're not getting the implications limiting a woman's choice of birth control, as you don't understand the full situation that women deal with.

There are many forms of birth control out there right now, but consider that not every one is available to all women, especially so if you include the associated costs.

A vast majority of birth control relies on hormonal methods. Not all women can use them as they can interfere with their physical and mental health. Often, women find this out after they have already paid for the medication (one-month up to three-year supply).

Sterilization methods are not recommended for anyone who desires to have children in the future (obviously), but also limit the options of women who are unable to take time off of work to properly heal or have active jobs (like a Hobby Lobby employee). These methods also require follow-up care, which may or may not be covered by insurance, and may require more time off of work.

Barrier methods are most common, but they also have associated issues (such as latex/spermicide allergies, higher failure rate).

As for abstinence and natural family planning, I'm not even going to discuss as reasonable birth control, because come on!

So now if we go back to an example of a woman who has comprehensive medical coverage, birth control costs may be covered, but her options may be limited due to any of the scenarios listed above. If you use the example of a woman who does not have full coverage, it limits her options even further, and may result in no methods of birth control being available to her.

So, in response to your argument ("No one is going to go without access to birth control"), please consider the following:

If a woman chooses to pay for her birth control out of pocket, she may be able to afford the prescription costs, but the additional costs (seeing a physician for the prescription, follow-up appointments, medical treatment due to complications, time off of work) may or may not be covered. Also, at this time it is unclear if a Hobby Lobby employee would have coverage related to a banned birth control (such pre-screening appointments, removal, response to medical complications, or associated time off from work).

tl;dr:
Even if a woman can afford one pack of birth control pills,
-she may not be able to take the medication
-can't necessarily afford the cost of going to a physician to get the prescription
-may not be covered for any follow-up treatment
-may not be covered for any response to medical complications
-may not be covered for time off related to the prescription

Please compare the failure rates, then see how reasonable they are.

Let's see what happens when a non-Christian business owner uses their religious views to restrict their employee's access to health care.

Waferdog, your medical insurance has two plans, identical in every way except one has birth control benefits, and one without. This was done solely to appease the religious structures of the hospital.
Now consider how it would affect the employees if they decided to stop allowing that option. No more check boxes, all employees are on the same plan, no more access to birth control or any other hormonal treatments. That would be allowed by this Supreme Court ruling.