Michigan Businessman Applauds Court Ruling for Religious Liberty

HHS Mandate - Email_Win

CatholicVote calls decision a win-win for women and religious liberty

CHICAGO — Catholic businessman and plaintiff John Kennedy applauded the Supreme Court for their ruling in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood religious liberty cases.

“We are deeply grateful that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those business owners whose sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from complying with the HHS Mandate. We anticipate that the court will follow its usual practice of remanding our case for reconsideration in light of its decision.

“Based on today’s decision and the compelling facts in our case, we trust that we will be permitted to conduct business in a manner that is true to our sincerely held religious beliefs while continuing to provide generous wages and award-winning health benefits to our employees,” said Kennedy.

Kennedy is the Founder/CEO of Autocam, a leading precision manufacturer for both the automotive and medical industries based in Grand Rapids, MI. Kennedy’s challenge to the mandate was held by the Supreme Court pending the outcome of their decision in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Corporation cases.

Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org Legal Defense Fund, which is representing Kennedy, said:

“The First Amendment protections of speech, free assembly, and religious liberty are cherished principles which unite all Americans. We are reviewing this lengthy opinion. For now, we are happy to see the United States Supreme Court affirm these critical freedoms and has put an end to an unnecessary and highly divisive attack on the First Amendment.

“Women who wish to purchase these drugs can now do so without having to first demand permission or funding from their bosses, while employers can remain faithful to their consciences and sincerely held moral convictions. It’s truly a win-win for health care freedom and religious liberty.”

CatholicVote.org Legal Defense Fund represented Autocam in its lawsuit against the federal government.

Contact: Joshua Mercer, 517-212-0419, mercer-at-catholicvote-dot-org




  • mike parnell

    It’s a tough time to be a woman in this country. If it were MEN who got pregnant, this issue would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

  • http://T40wave@aol.com JKL

    Bologna, Sean. This is a win for religious liberty.
    Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He owns it. RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was sponsored by Democrat N.Y. Sen. Charles Schumer and earned the votes of leading liberals including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer.

  • Sean Argir

    This is total crap. Though the court said it only applied to contraceptives, think about the domino effect it will have.

    Many businesses can now sue in the future claiming religious freedom in the attempt to not have to pay for any number of different kinds of medical stuff.

    • Sean Argir


      “Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA,” she wrote. “The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.”

      This new precedent “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith,” she wrote, adding that some religious corporations may refuse to pay for vaccines.


      • Dan

        Also puzzling was this from Ginsberg: that corporations are “artificial legal entities”.

        Um, they are certainly legal entities.

    • Sean Argir

      Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

      —–Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? […] There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude. The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.


      • David

        I guess the government should not mandate that private corporations provide health insurance

      • Dan

        IMO, Ginsburg and others are missing the point.

        The government wandered into a minfield of their own creation when it assumed the authority to force people (individually and in a corporate sense) to contract for goods and services. They aren’t supposed to do that, they did it and now are whining about standing law interfering with their wishes.

        Too bad.

    • Harry Smith

      A woman’s right to determine when to bring a child into the world was attacked today.

      • Dan

        Please substantiate that comment.

        The ruling didn’t prevent any women in the US from obtaining any BC she wants.

      • David

        How so Harry? She can purchase her own contraceptives or an insurance plan that provides that coverage.

    • Caro

      Maybe it was better when GOVERNMENT left healthcare to the people not to their own dictatorship. All this was brought on by the seculat world not because of catholics. Lol I guess, no matter what our church will continue to be persecuted.



Receive our updates via email.