Law forces churches to hire homosexuals

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 22, 2005 | World Net Daily

[ViLaLuz]

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. ...

[aspiring.hillbilly]

the filhy demoncrap party relies on the homo vote, and the governor is a filthy demoncrap.... Any questions?

this violates the First Amendment hugely,,,these churches need to take the homo promoting bastards to court...

[Fruitbat]

Homosexuality -- In your face, and you WILL accept it!

Yeah, TOTAL Barbara Streisand!

I'm sure the same judge will insist that heterosexuals have identical rights in working for homo organizations.

Right judge!!!

[Fruitbat]

P.S. By that I meant heterosexuals who are not supporters of homo lifestyles!!

[bethelgrad]

The gates of hell shall not prevail against the body of Christ. Regardless of these immoral provisions, the true church will prevail---even if its property is confiscated because of the complaint of a sodomite.

[popdonnelly]

I asked the question because if Mosques are not required to hire homosexuals for religious reasons, then Christian churches which are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds shouldn't be required to hire homosexuals. On the principle that like things should be treated alike.

[thoughtomator]

I don't see the freedom of religion angle as being that strong. This looks primarily like a case of coerced - and therefore unconstitutional - association to me.

[thoughtomator]

Homosexuals won't try these Nazi tactics on the Muslims because they know they'd be going home with their head in a bag.

[Kuksool]

If the issue is a freedom of association, then precedent is on the churches' side. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts when gay activists tried to use a similar law in NJ.

[stayathomemom]

I really don't see how this can work. Our church extends a "divine call" for its pastors and teachers. This is done at a congregational meeting, where only men can vote. It is also a secret ballot. The results, I would say, are considered God's will. I don't see how a state government can dictate this.

Does anyone remember the outcome of the lawsuit against KFUO at Concordia, St Louis? It was regarding hiring practices.

[Fitzcarraldo]

[libstripper]

That's true and the Supreme Court has sustained that very position. As I remember, the case involving the Boy Scouts arose because the New Jersey Commission on Human Rights had found that the Scouts illegally discriminated against homosexuals in refusing to allow them to become scout leaders. The Scouts' argument, accepted by the Supreme Court, was that they had a First Amendment-protected freedom of religion right not to hire homosexuals, because the religious teachings they impart as a part of the Scouts' creed prohibit homosexuality.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Watch now for Bible abridgement laws.

[thoughtomator]

Yeah to me that is the precedent.

[ViLaLuz]

"Meet the new Abbas, same as the old Abbas"

Love the sig!

[demkicker]

Homosexuals won't try these Nazi tactics on the Muslims because they know they'd be going home with their head in a bag

They don't have to. Lot's of Muslims are already bisexual. Many use women only to procreate, but prefer same sex "partners".

[american spirit]

I'm sure these churches are essentially '501C-3 corporations' in which they receive numerous IRS granted tax benefits in exchange for 'compliance' with federal/state laws. These churches exchanged their sovereignty for certain 'privileges' and became subject to fedgov mandates and now they're paying the price.......that's what happens when you make the proverbial 'deal with the devil'.

[Tench_Coxe]

I am interested to see how this will be enforced.

[Ohioan]

Of course this is absolutely outrageous. But it merely takes an outrageous assault on personal freedom, which the Civil Rights laws on employment practices always were, to the final reduction to absurdity.

Will this finally wake people up to what happens when you allow the politically correct crowd to force their fanaticism on others? Who can say. I have been fighting this totalitarian mindset since I was a lad in High School, always expecting the reaction. It will come, or freedom will deteriorate even further, throughout what was once the "Land of the free, and the home of the brave."

For more on this type of legislation: Civil Rights vs. A Free Society

William Flax

[chuckwalla]

The heart of the matter.
"NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" is being violated here.
The left has for some time thake the cafeteria approach to the constitution.