This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Monday, June 30, 2014.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby case tells certain companies that they may, as a religious matter,

asked to be exempted from paying for products or services that contradict their religious faith.

Trevor Burris, a research associate at the Cato Institute,

says the court's narrow ruling got it right.

The basic holding is pretty narrow and pretty simple.

The basic holding is that the corporations, the small closely held corporations,

the court did not get to large publicly traded corporations, but corporations such as Hobby Lobby

and Conestogawood do have the ability to to make religious freedom claims.

You can either say that's on behalf of the corporation or you could say it's the members of the corporation.

It doesn't really matter for this case and that they made the claim and the ruling was that the birth control mandate of the Affordable Care Act was not narrowly tailored to address the question to address the problem that the government was trying to deal with.

So basically the court said in the most basins, the sense that the law is so Swiss cheese

with exemptions and other things that the government could do to not burden

their religious belief of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, that the government can certainly give

another exemption to them and not undermine the entire law because

it's already been undermined a lot by all the exemption.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is very concerned about this ruling.

She says the court, I fear, has ventured into a mine field in her dissent.

She says religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons

subscribing to the same religious faith,

not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operation of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.

...