When does a conscience claim look like a "conscience" claim?

Rick wonders why some journalists feel the need to put scare quotes around "conscience" when it comes to claims by pro-life health care providers:

My own impression is that many in the press -- specifically, those who insist on putting "scare quotes" around "conscience" (when they surely would not do so in a story involving, say, a placard-making company that did not want to provide anti-gay hate-signs to Fred Phelps) -- simply do not concede that conscience could ever lead one to conclude that one ought not to cooperate in the provision of a particular product or that, if it ever does, it is, to that extent, not worthy of protection.

I share Rick's skepticism, and I would guess that most journalists' use of scare quotes reflects more about their view of the substantive merits of the particular claim at issue, rather than some overarching understanding of what an authentic view of "conscience" might look like.

That said, in some cases, a journalist might be justified in wondering -- and in feeling a corresponding need to signal their uncertainty regarding -- whether a given provider's claim should be treated as a conscience claim.  Traditionally, conscience claims within the American legal system have been claims of negative liberty invoked on an individual's behalf against the government.  We do not allow the state to force a student to recite the pledge of allegiance, for example. 

But the label "conscience" has been expanded far beyond the individual-versus-state-negative-liberty paradigm.  Many providers are invoking a right of conscience to compel non-state entities to accommodate their moral convictions to an extent that changes the basic expectations and responsibilities of the jobs for which they've been hired.  If we're using conscience as a positive liberty against non-state entities, is it still a "conscience" claim?  Should a Scientologist pharmacist be able to demand that a pharmacy hire him even if he won't fill any prescriptions for anti-depressants, thereby forcing the pharmacy to keep an additional pharmacist on duty or losing the anti-depressant revenue stream?  Should an evangelical Christian bus driver be able to choose which bus he operates based on whether he has a moral objection to the content of the bus's advertisements?  Should a Muslim cashier be able to keep her job at a grocery store even if she refuses to handle pork products? 

Do all of these disputes implicate conscience?  I think they do.  Our traditional notion of conscience was unhelpfully cramped.  But I can sympathize with folks who are having a hard time navigating -- and articulating as objectively as possible -- the unfolding conscience landscape.  For Americans steeped in the image of conscience protecting the brave and lonely individual standing up to state power, it's no wonder why some of today's battles look more like "conscience" than conscience.