HHS: Bible publisher not a ‘religious employer’

[markomalley]

From the Washington Times:
The Obama administration is claiming that a dedicated Christian publisher of Bibles and ministry material is insufficiently religious to qualify for an exemption to the contraception mandate in the president’s health-care overhaul.

According to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in the District of Columbia by Tyndale House Publishers, the company has been refused a “religious employer” exemption because the Health and Human Services Department categorically maintains that any for-profit publisher is not a “religious employer.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Tyndale, called the rule an unconstitutional and arbitrary threat to religious freedom.

“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”
The government mandating insurance coverage is evil. The government mandating that evil actions be mandated as part of insurance coverage is evil, multiplied.

And I don’t care if Tyndale is religious or not. It’s just plain wrong.

 

[JonNC]

From the Washington Times:
The Obama administration is claiming that a dedicated Christian publisher of Bibles and ministry material is insufficiently religious to qualify for an exemption to the contraception mandate in the president’s health-care overhaul.

According to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in the District of Columbia by Tyndale House Publishers, the company has been refused a “religious employer” exemption because the Health and Human Services Department categorically maintains that any for-profit publisher is not a “religious employer.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Tyndale, called the rule an unconstitutional and arbitrary threat to religious freedom.

“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”
The government mandating insurance coverage is evil. The government mandating that evil actions be mandated as part of insurance coverage is evil, multiplied.

And I don’t care if Tyndale is religious or not. It’s just plain wrong.

Indicative of the progressive attempt to limit and reduce religious liberty into a mere freedom to worship. This was clearly not the intent of the writers of the 1st amendment, but that fact seems more and more irrelevent to progressives.

Jon

 

[tabycat]

From the Washington Times:
The Obama administration is claiming that a dedicated Christian publisher of Bibles and ministry material is insufficiently religious to qualify for an exemption to the contraception mandate in the president’s health-care overhaul.

According to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in the District of Columbia by Tyndale House Publishers, the company has been refused a “religious employer” exemption because the Health and Human Services Department categorically maintains that any for-profit publisher is not a “religious employer.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Tyndale, called the rule an unconstitutional and arbitrary threat to religious freedom.

“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”
The government mandating insurance coverage is evil. The government mandating that evil actions be mandated as part of insurance coverage is evil, multiplied.

And I don’t care if Tyndale is religious or not. It’s just plain wrong.

I wonder what Obama and company thinks Tyndale is?

 

[ccmnxc]

the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

^This

 

[teenphilo1]

French Revolution II (but this time in America), anyone?

I have a strange feeling that this won’t end well…

 

[iloveangels]

I wonder what Obama and company thinks Tyndale is?

This is going to be the general reaction, probably starting now and going on for the next couple of years. The conditions for getting an exemption were made very clear for those who actually read them. A lot of Catholics are running their mouths without reading them and so they’re going to get shock after shock. Here they are:

**"The exemption is only for a “religious employer,” defined as “one that (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the [Internal Revenue] Code.” HHS notes that these provisions of the Code refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.”

"Plans offered by a great many Church-affiliated organizations, including Catholic colleges and universities, as well as hospitals and charitable institutions that serve the general public, would be ineligible under the terms of this exemption. "**

Note that the “exclusively religious activities of any religious order,” in order to qualify will have to meet the 4 criteria given in the definition. This excludes food banks, clinics, schools, hospitals, schools, colleges and all sorts of activities that do not meet ALL the criteria. Read them carefully.

cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/religious-liberty/conscience-rights/190-background-mandated-contraceptive-and-sterilization-coverage

Tyndale is a publishing company. Tyndale fails every single one of the criteria, except perhaps 2, and that one’s debatable. Under these rules, it very clearly does not qualify for an exemption.

1. Inculcation of faith is not its primary purpose, although it is probably one of its purposes. It’s a business and selling product is its primary purpose because that’s the primary purpose of all businesses. [Trying to claim otherwise simply doesn’t fly with the tax accountants of the IRS.]
2. I have no idea if it exclusively employs Christians, and I don’t know if they’re all from the same denomination. (probably not all from the same denomination, knowing Protestants; I used to be one)
3. It sells product to the general public and does not ask for proof of church membership to potential buyers, or refuse to sell to non-Christians holding the same religious tenets as its employees.
4. It is not tax-exempt under the regular laws that cover houses of worship.

 

[iloveangels]

Fines for non-compliance or avoidance, if you can’t get an exemption, are very steep.

Non-compliance: $100 per employee per day.
“Therefore, religious employers with hundreds of employees could be fined millions of dollars each year. A 50-employee institution, for example, would face a penalty of $1,825,000 each year.” pjmedia.com/blog/obamacare-catch-22-crushing-fines-for-religious-institutions-under-mandate/

Avoidance (meaning you drop insurance, perhaps paying employees more so they can get their own): There is a basic annual fine of $2000 per employee that the employer pays if you do this. Plus: “Religious employers might wish to help offset these sudden new health insurance costs for their employees by raising salaries with potential savings from dropping health insurance plans. But under the Obamacare penalties, employers will be forced to divert a portion of those potential savings to the federal government instead. Ultimately, the penalty is likely to hurt employees’ overall compensation packages.”
heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/obamacares-preventive-services-mandate-and-religious-liberty

 

[_Abyssinia]

Employers are being put in a terrible situation. They either have to provide coverage but they will be in mortal sin or do not provide coverage and pay expensive fines that will likely put businesses out of business. It is surreal. You elect Mitt Romney and the burden is taken of employers because you can guarantee that the mandate will be rescinded

This attorney seems confident the appeals court will reverse the desicion by the district court

 

[Publisher]

I wonder what Obama and company thinks Tyndale is?

A for profit public business. They do not publish books out of the goodness of their hearts, they publish books to make money.

 

[BroomWagon]

I always thought Tyndale was a branch of Zondervan publishing, something to research.

 

[iloveangels]

Employers are being put in a terrible situation. They either have to provide coverage but they will be in mortal sin or do not provide coverage and pay expensive fines that will likely put businesses out of business. It is surreal. You elect Mitt Romney and the burden is taken of employers because you can guarantee that the mandate will be rescinded

This attorney seems confident the appeals court will reverse the desicion by the district court

For a fast food operator, it’s a sin. For someone who deals in religious merchandise it’s a sin plus a huge problem because it makes them a vendor who denies his own merchandise. And for a Catholic food bank or soup kitchen, who claims to be doing God’s work and doesn’t make a profit, it’s even more serious than that. Probably most of the Catholic ones will shut down.

I expect that faithful Catholic colleges (there are a few) will take the avoidance route, paying the $2000 per person plus the other penalties for doing it that way, and continue to teach theology.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

For a fast food operator, it’s a sin. For someone who deals in religious merchandise it’s something else. And for a Catholic food bank or soup kitchen, who claims to be doing God’s work or a college teaching Catholic theology, it’s even more serious than that. Probably most of the Catholic ones will shut down.

Think of the poor people of all denominations that will suffer if many Catholic charities, hospitals, etc., shut down. That should make the liberals happy, eh?

 

[iloveangels]

Think of the poor people of all denominations that will suffer if many Catholic charities, hospitals, etc., shut down. That should make the liberals happy, eh?

They want to control that sector of the American population, yes. Let them have it. When they botch it up so badly that people come looking for us, which they will, we’ll be here. It’s not like this hasn’t happened before in other places and other times. We cannot preach the anti-Gospel. It’s not true, and it’s not in anybody’s interest, even ours.

 

[JonNC]

A for profit public business. They do not publish books out of the goodness of their hearts, they publish books to make money.

Being a for-profit business does not exclude the free exercise clause for the those participating in it. This is the problem when the central government steps outside its constitutionally mandated role and limitations under the enumerated powers.

Jon

 

[iloveangels]

I always thought Tyndale was a branch of Zondervan publishing, something to research.

I don’t think so. They’re usually both marketed in the same place and the competition is friendly because of the kind of business they’re in, I think. That’s what makes it look that way.

Tyndale history: tyndale.com/50_Company/tyndale_purpose.php

Zondervan history: zondervan.com/about/history

Zondervan is actually an arm of HarperCollins now, which is a bigger mainstream publishing company.

 

[iloveangels]

Being a for-profit business does not exclude the free exercise clause for the those participating in it. This is the problem when the central government steps outside its constitutionally mandated role and limitations under the enumerated powers.

Jon

Yup. The government is going to claim that what they’re doing has nothing to do with the content of the publishers dossier, but that it applies to everyone. And try to put the squeeze on the faithful ones that bother them that way. But the truth will live on anyway. They can’t stop it and they’re foolish and don’t know history if they think they can.

But the thing I’m most concerned about is that Catholics just don’t seem to be comprehending what’s going to happen with the HHS mandate specifically. They don’t seem to be reading the definition for a religious institution and understanding how specific and how serious it is. And what it will do to Catholic institutions. They’re all going to be completely shocked if they don’t wake up. Maybe this is the “great alarm clock in the sky” for all these people who’ve been snoozing along doing whatever. We’ll see.

Make no mistake. ALL 4 CRITERIA are going to be applied to EVERY Christian church, group, enterprise or business. Most of them, except churches proper, are going to fail those criteria and be required to comply or pay the crushing and destructive fines. Churches and religious orders will have to monitor their activities to make sure they don’t fall out of one or the other of these criteria; some of them are going to have trouble with that. Many Catholic businesses, charities, retreat houses and other institutions are simply going to lock the doors, lay off the employees and close up shop.

There will be some that will be able to sell businesses which will go on under new (secular) management with the same name, but not the same leadership. This will happen to many hospitals, doctors’ groups, clinics and so on. And some colleges are already run by lay boards who are secular–that will continue and tend to take over the Catholic-sounding sector, even though it will not be Catholic. There will be no difference between sending your child to a “Catholic college” with those properties and a secular university, except price. None whatsoever.

 

[_Abyssinia]

President Brags about Religious-Freedom-Eroding HHS Mandate

Interview with CEO of Tyndale

 

[Trader]

A for profit public business. They do not publish books out of the goodness of their hearts, they publish books to make money.

I don’t care if they publish borderline pornography. No one should be forced to pay a special tax for refusing to act against his conscience. Period.

Our country has long recognized consciencious objectors to a military draft.

The Amish have an exemption from Social Security and Medicare based on their religious views.

You can even defend yourself against child neglect in some states if medical treatments are contrary to your religious beliefs.

Freedom of Conscience is not a new concept in our country:

Thomas Jefferson on Freedom of Conscience

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” - 1777

“It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.” - 1781

“But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to God.” - 1782

“The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury.” - 1801

“We are bound, you, I, and every one, to make common cause, even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience.” - 1803

“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become their own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself.” - 1803

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the “rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” - 1809

“This country which has given to the world the example of physical liberty owes it that of moral emancipation also.” - 1821