On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act's requirement that for-profit corporations provide insurance coverage for contraception, according to the New York Times.

The case, which is sure to draw a lot of media attention, will essentially pit religious believers against women's rights advocates.

The case was brought to attention of the justices by the chain of crafts stores Hobby Lobby that cited conflicts of its religious principles.

According to the Times, the justices will review the case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a law requiring that the federal government meet a demanding standard when it imposes burdens on religious beliefs.

Walter Dellinger, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, filed a brief with the court urging them to uphold the health care act's requirement. He told the Times that there could be consequences for not only contraception but for other health, civil rights and safety issues if the courts rule in favor of the companies.

"If Hobby Lobby were to prevail, the consequences would extend far beyond the issue of contraception," he said.

Dellinger also said that the ruling could create a system where corporations could claim religious rights violations and earn exemptions to laws.

"We would be entering a new world in which, for the first time, commercial enterprise could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else," he said. "A win for Hobby Lobby could turn out to be a significant setback for gay rights."

Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett filed a brief for the other side and argues that Dellinger's claim is off base. He said Hobby Lobby's case is about protecting the sanctity of life.

"The prediction that a win for Hobby Lobby -- a case that is not at all about discrimination or denial of service and instead is about deeply held views regarding the sanctity of life -- would be a serious setback for gay rights is, in my view, unfounded," Garnett said.

He also said that laws banning discrimination against sexual orientation do not pose a burden on religious beliefs, however, one exception he proposed was that of a wedding photography company turning down a same-sex couple's business.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. also filed a brief earlier this month warning the Supreme Court justices that a decision to strike down the contraception provision could affect other laws.

Verrilli said that minimum wage, overtime laws, vaccination requirements and Social Security taxes could be challenged by religious proponents again as they have been in previous cases.

Fifteen states, including California, filed another brief, which argued that the Supreme Court's decision could impact a business's coverage for blood transfusions, immunizations, stem cell treatments and psychiatric care.

However, 20 other states filed their own brief stating that it's America's duty to protect religious freedoms. They cited examples of the need to protect "a Jewish-owned deli that does not sell non-kosher foods" and "a Muslim-owned financial brokerage that will not lend money for interest."