I seem to recall there is, but cannot square that with the Cameron government’s intent to argue in court that two UK Christian women disciplined at work for wearing crosses have no right do so under human rights law. Excerpt:
Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “It is extraordinary that a Conservative government should argue that the wearing of a cross is not a generally recognised practice of the Christian faith.
“In recent months the courts have refused to recognise the wearing of a cross, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and Sundays as a day of worship as ‘core’ expressions of the Christian faith.
“What next? Will our courts overrule the Ten Commandments?”
John E 
philosopher 
elizabeth 
John of Dorset 
Mitchell, since I am a Christian, your argument will be viewed by any rational and unbiased observer as a dispute BETWEEN Christians as to what Christianity means, rather like a Salafist and a Sufi or Ammadiyah Muslim having an argument.
IF our system of health care financing did not (long before President Obama took the oath of office) rest on routine provision of medical coverage by and/or through employers, then there probably would be no mandate. Arguably, single-payer would be a better system, but right now, we don’t have the political will to make the transition.
As long as this is how we finance medical coverage, the question in both cases is, shall employers be allowed to use their leverage AS employers to impose their preferences upon employees. Its not like employers who provide NO medical coverage are being independently required to pay for contraception, regardless.
Yeah, seeing your employees wearing a cross is more passive than knowing that a small percentage of the premium checks you write anyway may be used to pay for contraception… but that’s not a big difference in the impact on an employer’s required actions. And a militantly atheist employer might find having to see that cross openly displayed all day to seriously infringe their sense of propriety, ruin their concentration… and other absurd whining objections.
As to public accommodations, although I generally sympathize with inn keepers who want to exercise their discretion in who they accept on the premises, there is a very old legal tradition, going back to the halcyon medeival times when the cosmos was well ordered and morality was universal, that those licensed to provide public accommodations must serve all who travel the road. It is not an inconsequential argument.