In a decision of this sort, it's important to look beyond the specific case to the broader implications and to the precedent set.   This ruling does not apply only to right-wing bigots. Many progressives cite religious beliefs to buttress their political arguments. Religious minorities in the UK make legal claims based upon faith. Will this ruling be applied universally to enforce the secularization of society? Or will it be used a bludgeon against particular groups? It's a troubling decision either way.

" . . . religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence."

The same could be said for matters of conscience in general. Go back and read your Nietzsche. Are you certain you want to discard anything that cannot be empirically verified?

" . . . a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

I don't know how one determines whether a position is "purely" religious, and I question whether such a distinction can even be made, but it doesn't take a scholar to see that this line of reasoning can be used against any position based upon religious faith. Well, there goes the 'Higher Law' argument made by abolitionists in the antebellum United States. So much for the arguments of Liberation Theology, and the opposition of some Christian groups to the Reagan administration's "low-intensity warfare" and support for right-wing dictators in Central America during the 1980s. And I'm afraid this ruling does undermine much of the basis for conscientious objectors, sophistic distinctions between 'religious views' and 'personal conscience' notwithstanding.

Finally, if matters that cannot be empirically verified have no valid legal standing, and if matters of religion and conscience are equally unverifiable, then what remains? It seems to me that this ruling – whether deliberately or not – essentially claims that law itself is the source of truth. You might want to ponder the implications of this philosophical position.