Churches barred from 'gay' discrimination

[Amelia]

Churches barred from 'gay' discrimination

New measure requires religious groups to hire homosexuals

Posted: January 22, 2005

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Illinois churches are protesting a new state law that bars them from "discriminating" against homosexuals, contending it robs Christians of their First Amendment freedoms.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the bill into law yesterday amid a demonstration led by the Illinois Family Institute, or IFI, a non-profit group affiliated with Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund.

The measure adds "sexual orientation" to the state law that bars discrimination based on race, religion and similar traits in areas such as jobs and housing.

The bill was signed to loud cheers and a standing ovation from about 150 homosexual-rights supporters who see it as a human-rights issue.

"This legislation sends a clear message that we will not allow our citizens to be discriminated against," Blagojevich said in a statement.

"What we're doing today is older than scripture: Love thy neighbor," the governor told the audience yesterday, according to the Associated Press. "It's what Jesus said when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: 'Do unto others what you would have others do unto you."'

Illinois is the 15th state to prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation."

But IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera notes the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Carol Ronen, D-Chicago, is on record stating it should be applied to churches, meaning they would not be allowed, for example, to reject a job applicant who practices homosexual behavior.

Ronen said: "If that is their goal, to discriminate against gay people, this law wouldn't allow them to do that. But I don't believe that's what the Catholic Church wants or stands for."

LaBarbera argues politicians who don't view homosexuality as a sin have no right to take away the freedom of churches and people of faith to disagree.

"Since when do politicians get to interpret sacred religious teachings for the rest of us?" he said.

The law applies to organizations or businesses with more than 15 employees.

LaBarbera points out the Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues, published an analysis of the measure, which says, "While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois' Human Rights Act does not."

The analysis says, "The question inevitably presented by this omission is whether the Bill will be applied to compel religious organizations to set aside convictions about homosexuality when making employment decisions. ... The measure may ultimately force courts to consider and balance its ban on sexual orientation discrimination with State and Federal constitutional safeguards of religious freedom."

LaBarbera says that with enactment of this law, government is coming down on one side of a heated moral controversy by forcing the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

"It's about saying that 'gay rights' are more important than religious freedoms, and we hope ultimately it will be struck down in court," he said.

The bill was passed on the last day of a lame-duck legislative session after a campaign by the state's leading homosexual lobby, Equality Illinois.

Commented LaBarbera: "There is no societal consensus for homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality as the basis for civil rights -- and certainly none for the idea that the 'rights' of homosexual should trump those of churches and people of faith to live our their rational belief that homosexuality is unnatural, wrong and harmful to those who practice it."

[Guest]

Glad we got that one checked off...

next on the agenda...

People for the Ethical Treatment of Pedophiles

[Amelia]

I for one am glad you didnt mention cell phones. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Amelia]

Gov. Blagojevich is Signing Away Religious Freedom says Ill Family Institute

Regarding Signing Unconstitutional ‘Gay/Trans’ Bill SB 3186

CHICAGO, Jan. 21 -- By signing into law SB 3186--a bill that, according to its sponsor, would ban churches from ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals—Gov. Blagojevich is signing away the First Amendment freedoms of churches and anyone who disagrees with homosexuality, Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said today.

Blagojevich is poised to sign SB 3186 today at noon, and IFI will be leading a counter-protest at 11:30 today at 160 N. LaSalle, the Michael A. Bilandic Building.

SB 3186 sponsor Sen. Carol Ronen (D-Chicago) is on record stating that the new law should be applied to churches: “If that is their goal, to discriminate against gay people, this law wouldn't allow them to do that. But I don't believe that's what the Catholic Church wants or stands for.”

“Just because liberal like Gov. Blagojevich, Carol Ronen, and Emil Jones no longer view homosexuality as a sin doesn’t give them the right to take away the freedom of churches and people of faith to disagree—and to make hiring decisions according to their beliefs,” LaBarbera said. “Since when do politicians get to interpret sacred religious teachings for the rest of us?”

“The governor covets a pro-family image, most recently through his video games proposal,” LaBarbera said. “But today we see his other side. You can’t be ‘pro-family’ and sign this unconstitutional bill that will turn churches and religious schools with more than 15 employees into lawsuit targets for the well-financed ‘gay,’ bisexual and transsexual lobbies.”

The threat is real, he said: The Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues, published an analysis of SB 3186 that states (emphasis added): “While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois’ Human Rights Act does not. The question inevitably presented by this omission is whether the Bill will be applied to compel religious organizations to set aside convictions about homosexuality when making employment decisions…The measure may ultimately force courts to consider and balance its ban on sexual orientation discrimination with State and Federal constitutional safeguards of religious freedom.”

“This law is all about government coming down on one side of a heated moral controversy by forcing the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality,” LaBarbera said. “It’s about saying that ‘gay rights’ are more important than religious freedoms, and we hope ultimately it will be struck down in court.”

SB 3186 was rammed through on the last day of a lame-duck legislative session, following a crafty Christmas holiday lobby campaign by the state’s leading homosexual lobby, Equality Illinois, coupled with legislative arm-twisting by Senate President Emil Jones (D).

“There is no societal consensus for homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality as the basis for civil rights—and certainly none for the idea that the ‘rights’ of homosexual should trump those of churches and people of faith to live our their rational belief that homosexuality is unnatural, wrong, and harmful to those who practice it.” LaBarbera said.

[Nicodema]

The real issue here is the tax exempt status enjoyed by religious organizations. Freedom is a two-edged sword -- liberty on one side, responsibility on the other. If you wish to not be responsible to something or someone you forfeit a corresponding freedom. And likewise if you wish to embrace a freedom you embrace a corresponding responsibility with it. It is that simple.

[Gregory Matthews]

I agree that this law, as reported, is probably of some concern to churches. I think that it is likely to result in litagation to determine the boundries and effect of that law.

However, let us differentiate between a chruch and a church organizaiton. Under the U. S. Constitution, churches and people have the freedom.

If a denomination owns a factory that manufactures redwood lawn furniture, should that factory be exempt from labor law? Should it be free to refuse to hire a homosexual? Is the manfacture of the piece of redwood furnitrue something that in any sense should be construed as a vital part of religious belief and practice that should have a Constitutional protection?

NOTE: The SDA Church once owned a factory that manufactured redwood lawn furniture.

I predict that after the litigation is over and settled, that churches shall be protected in their fundamental religious practices. But, I predict that other organizations, such as hospitals (But not religious schools.) will not have such protections.

[Gregory Matthews]

I suspect that you are probably correct.

However, should a librian, in a medical center library, be fired because she became pregnant, and she is not married? I believe such was the issue in a SDA medical center within the past ten years.

Of course it would have been much simpler if she had either terminated her pregnancy, or fallen on the ground in abject sorrow for her sin. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad25.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/seenoevil.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

Wow. My immediate response to that query would be, "of course not!"

Then, it made me think. Would it be all right to have dismissed this same woman from membership in the Adventist church if it were found out that she was pregnant, not married and had been having sexual relations for a few years?

Just asking because I know of young ladies in the Adventist faith who have been in these same situations and they were NOT cast out. And yet, a married woman who has been found unfaithful (and a married man who has been found unfaithful) would be immediately asked to withdraw their membership.