Corporations and Birth Control

There were many parts to the Supreme Courts decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that irritated me, the greatest point being that women were being denied the right to have birth control be covered under their health insurance policy; which was recently granted under Obama care. The second portion of this ruling that got under my skin was from Sarah Mirk's article,
"people at the top of companies are not representative of most Americans: 92 percent of Fortune 100 CEOs are men and 94 percent are white."
How are men even remotely capable of representing women when it comes to our reproductive system or even our menstrual cycles? They're not.  How do "religious views" even have legal standing in the Supreme Court for this topic? They don't. Its irritating yet baffling that the religious views of one CEO  becomes the dangerous precedent for later cases but also the ruling voice in a matter that has no legal standing.
In terms of whether or not these corporations have the right to do this, I do not believe so. As discussed in class birth control is not just to prevent pregnancies; for my best friend it helps with her endometriosis, others it helps with specific things that come with menstrual cycles like extreme cramping, migraines, acne or even just to simply regulate. Its not just to make sure we don't pop out kids.
I am catholic and as a kid I was raised as a catholic. As I got older my parents gave me the choice as to how I wanted to exercise my religion, while I identify as a catholic I don't strictly follow everything that the catholic church believes. Instead I have my own interpretation of my religion, including the use of birth control which many do not agree with. Does that make me a bad catholic or not even a catholic? some may think so. Does this mean that since I allow and agree with the use of birth control that I should be able to push my views on others? No.
How can a man who doesn't experience any of these things at any point in his life (other than possibly migraines or acne) make a decision that says women wont be covered for birth control simply because his religious beliefs disapprove of this. How does one persons religious views trump the millions of religious views that women may have that approve the use of birth control? What does this mean for future cases involving religious freedom? 
From the Wheaton case, Katherine Cross states,
"The great risk of this injunction is that a wide space has been opened for all manner of religious claims to punch holes in federal law, so long as they are claims that the conservative and libertarian Justices are sympathetic to"
She is 100% correct, this ruling creates not only a false precedent for courts to follow, but it allows for religious views to attack any portion of federal law; equal marriage rights, all types of discrimination, even a shift over to criminal law will use the religion claim as a defense. Both the cases Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and the Wheaton injunction have created a very, very slippery slope.