No, we are not a "Christian" nation......

all swore into office with an oath to Jesus Christ.

under God.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.[

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath, or in their acceptance of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God."[33] There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his acceptance of the oath. No contemporary sources mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance.

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Barack Obama, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon (also a Quaker) swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.[8] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[9] Washington kissed the Bible afterwards,[10] and subsequent presidents followed suit, up to and including Harry Truman,[11] but Dwight D. Eisenhower broke that tradition by saying his own prayer instead of kissing the Bible.

Option of taking an oath or an affirmation

The Constitutional language gives the option to "affirm" instead of "swear". While the reasons for this are not documented, it may relate to certain Christians, including Quakers, who apply this scripture literally: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation" (James 5:12, KJV)

whether its swearing on a bible or koran is irrelevant.

Are you actually suggesting the first amendment is actually an endorsement of christianity.... simply because a biblee was used as a prop?

The fact that when we citizens elect the most powerful person in the world, the act of him putting his hand on the bible and giving an oath unto God shows everyone, including himself he is NOT the highest authority!

If we were to elect a Mormon, would we become a Mormon nation? Hindu? Buddhist? If we elected several of them? What is the threshold?

But yea could you imagine if a catholic ran this country. If you ran a stoplight you'de have topay a fine and give 20 hail Marys. or if a morman ran it, caffine and sugar would be against the law. and if a muslim, well you know. Rediculusness!

Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:
Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
Is not a personal service corporation.
The definitions for the terms "directly or indirectly" and "individual" are in Publication 542, Corporations.

Cargill, Koch Industries. Chrysler, GMAC Financial Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mars, Bechtel, HCA, Ernst & Young, Publix Super Markets

Don't we have a Muslim President right now? Suppose we have a "real" Muslim President (we will eventually)
Please be specific about your concerns.

Shouldn't they be allowed to hire who they want?

And quotes the bible to much IMO.

“We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] — or, for that matter, ACA – would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

We doubt that the Congress

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief — a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.

Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that the ruling that would have wide repercussions and “untoward effects.”
“Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private,” she wrote.
The Obama administration argued that the requirement wasn’t a mandate at all because the companies could have dropped coverage.

The question is: having hired someone, can you deny them benefits because of YOUR religion?
That's whats wrong. When you hire someone, does this give you the right to interfere in THEIR rights to equal opportunity under the law?

Shouldn't the employer have the right not to want to hire a woman?

I'd be interested in knowing why you say this.

Private business should be free to do as they may. This is a free country!

used their religion to deny benefits

The Obama administration and women’s health groups have warned that if they lost in the Supreme Court, the ruling could have much broader health coverage implications. If a company can skirt the contraception requirement, what’s to prevent another employer from objecting to providing access to vaccines or blood transfusions on religious grounds, they asked.

“Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private,” she wrote.

“[Health and Human Services] and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step,” Alito wrote.

“The Court levels a criticism that is as wrongheaded as can be. In no way does the dissent ‘tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed,” she wrote. “Right or wrong in this domain is a judgment no Member of this Court, or any civil court, is authorized or equipped to make. What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”

McConnell called Obamacare “the single worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 50 years” and praised the court for agreeing that the contraception requirement violates the RFRA

Private business should be free to do as they may. This is a free country!