In the spirit of fans being able to create their own fantasy football teams, one might consider a fantasy United States Supreme Court. In light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, my fantasy court would represent a range of “churches” and religious practitioners from daily worshipers to atheists. And by churches I mean, for example, a mosque, temple, meditation center, Kingdom Hall, fire temple, cathedral, shrine, Meeting House, stone circle or moonlit oak grove. Lord knows I’ve left out many. Feel free to add to the list.

Fantasy footballers can draft, trade, drop and add players weekly to suit their needs and strategies. A diverse religious panel of nine, mostly women, would have been my pick to hear the oral arguments on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which was decided on June 30.

To quickly recap, the Affordable Care Act stipulates that employers will pay health care for their employees, which covers all forms of contraception at no cost. In this case, the for-profit corporations contended that it would be against the owners’ Christian principles to pay for some contraceptive methods, including the morning-after pill and IUDs, that they argue end human life after conception. Violating the law would have resulted in fines that Hobby Lobby, with 640 arts and crafts stores, estimated at about $1.3 million a day or $475 million a year. Conestoga has about 950 employees, and is owned by a family who are Mennonite Christians. Violating the mandate could have cost them about $35 million a year in penalties.

The owners in these cases were shown to have sincere religious beliefs and business practices, and yet one of the key questions focused on whether profit-making corporations have any religious rights. Modern American debate has certainly discussed the question of whether corporations qualify as “people” whose rights are protected by the First Amendment and “persons” whose religious rights are protected by a 1993 law.

It might come as no surprise that five conservative Supreme Court justices issued the court ruling that closely-held, for-profit corporations can avoid the Affordable Care Act’s rules that require contraception coverage by invoking religious rights. As if exemplifying America’s left-right culture war, the 5-4 vote found five Catholics, all men, writing the majority decision that denied women important contraceptive coverage. One notes that the Catholic Church opposes abortion and birth control. Is it possible that this religious stance affected their decisions?

Hence, a proposal for a fantasy Supreme Court that would have possibly taken a broader view of the question. First, let’s make sure there’s a majority of females on the court for a deliberation that involves women’s reproductive health. It’s also no surprise that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, dissented in this case.

To put a fine point on the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that the dispute was, “at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.” Some might argue that women generally resemble people, even citizens, since we comprise 50.8 percent of Americans.

One of my fantasy justices must have spent at least 20 years as a worker bee for a large corporation before turning to a career in the law. Since the decision involving Citizens United also showed a court eager to favor corporations over workers and individuals, I think it important to choose at least one voice that clearly speaks for the interests of the receptionist, the line worker and the trucker over the CEO and stockholder.

But the fun would come in picking justices to represent a plethora of religions, all of which, presumably, hold sincere beliefs worthy of protection from the Affordable Care Act. Justice Ginsberg suggested other exemptions that might be considered. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs based on the Bible prohibit blood transfusions, even from their own stored blood. Even in surgery or emergencies, receiving red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma is banned and results in shunning.

Some Muslims, Jews and Hindus refuse any medications derived from pigs, including gelatin-coated pills, anesthesia and IV fluids. For Scientologists antidepressants are anathema. Christian Scientists and some others refuse vaccinations.

A panel of justices from those religions would have offered much richness to the limited debate about religiously-influenced corporations refusing certain contraceptives to women employees.

I’d encourage an atheist or two be added to the panel. Not to bring an anti-religion aspect to the case, but to counsel on the rights of all people to be protected from the values, mandates and edicts of others’ religions. The only way to ensure religious equanimity is to guarantee that no religious majority gets to stack the real or fantasy Supreme Court with its own members and set the rules for others.