IL Churches Must Hire Homosexuals
Politics
| January 22, 2005
| Tim
As I've mentioned now many times in the past, the main effect of protecting "sexual orientation" as a category will be to criminalize any dissent -- particularly religious dissent -- against homosexual practice.
Today's news:
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.
Well, if that makes sense, why not also mandate Christians churches hire atheists and Satanists? I mean, for example, why should they still also be allowed to discriminated against as pastors on religious grounds? That's just as "protected" as sexual orientation, no?
Or maybe it isn't, eh?
"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."'
No, Rod, what you're doing is as old as ancient Rome and the Catholic Church during the dark ages: Forcing your faithless religion on others, using the power of the state.
Don't tell me liberals believe in "separation of church and state." Here's Govenor Rod using the state's monopoly on physical violence to enforce what he assures us is his particular interpretation of Christianity: that nobody should be able to decide whether publicly endorsing promiscuous same-sex intercourse is inconsistent with a paid position of responsibility at their own church.
Remember: It's wrong to make laws based on your morals. Unless you're a Democrat. Then it's good. Then the state's job is to force others to conform to your religious beliefs. On threat of imprisionment or confiscation of property.
(Hey, in truth, I support his right to legislate what he believes, morally. I oppose this measure because it's a clear violation of the First Ammendment's guarantee people can worship and practice their faith as their conscience dictates. But I also note the hypocrisy, given arguments Democrats put forth about keeping one's "faith" out of legislation. That's only meant for their opponents.)
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....
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.
Since they're leftists. That's their general job description. Read yer history.
"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."
So, it's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion.
"Well, if that makes sense, why not also mandate Christians churches hire atheists and Satanists? I mean, for example, why should they still also be allowed to discriminated against as pastors on religious grounds? That's just as "protected" as sexual orientation, no?"
Actually, yes, it is - it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. But churches aren't forced to hire Satanists, are they? No. That's because churches are exempt from these laws when it comes religious jobs (I don't think they are exempt when it comes to something like a janitor, but that might vary from state to state).
Churches can already discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex when hiring. Adding sexual orientation to the list doesn't mean that churches will have to hire gays as pastors. The "separation of church and state" that you decry protects the churches from violating their beliefs in this. Ronen might think that it should apply to churches, but he might think the same about the ban on racial discrimination. So what? Doesn't change the law, which is that churches are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
Your headline is false. Your analysis is false. You didn't do your homework and leaped to false conclusions.
Joe,
Ummm... no, friend, I'm afraid you've missed the point, yourself. If I said something in an unclear manner, I apologize. But it seems your error stems from simply assuming everyone else must be ignorant and/or deceptive...
You seemed to think I'm saying churches are not exempted from discriminating on other bases, such as religion. You seem to think I'm not aware of that. No, I'm completely aware of that, and, unlike you, assume most other people would know it too, since it's patently obvious.
Instead, you seem to simply assume I'm wrong or deceptive when I assure my readers that churches would not be exempted from this law. But it is, in fact, you who are in error here, and didn't bother to look further before pulling the trigger. (Speaking of not doing homework, and leaping to false conclusions!)
Had you bothered to read the article yourself -- rather than just assuming I was deceptive in my assertions -- you would have seen it reported this ammendment, unlike the existing law, and laws in 17 other states, in fact DOES NOT exempt churches, exactly as I contend:
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.
Not only did I actually read the article in question, but I read quite a number of others to assure myself it was accurate before I posted it.
So, um, cool it, and stop assuming everyone else is an idiot. I wasn't lying, but I'm sorry if I didn't take sufficient measures to guard against people who would assume, without doing even the tiniest speck of research (like clicking on the link I gave you) that my assertions were utterly false.
Mistakes are understandable. People make them all the time. Next time, be a bit more patient with people who you think "didn't do their homework" lest it turn out it is, in fact, a charge you are guilty of. Ask twice whether it's possible, just maybe, that you're actually the one guilty of such, and then treat others as you'd like to be treated.
Have a nice day.
"Not only did I actually read the article in question, but I read quite a number of others to assure myself it was accurate before I posted it."
In that case, you must have read the Illinois Human Rights Act. And you read that the IHRA specifically exempts "religious corporations" from its provisions (meaning that churches can discriminate on the basis of things like race or sex) - by defining "employer" in a way that *does not include* religious corporations.
In other words. Illinois churches will continue to be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation just like they can discriminate on the basis of race or sex.
But you knew all that, because you did your homework. Right?
"I'm sorry if I didn't take sufficient measures to guard against people who would assume, without doing even the tiniest speck of research (like clicking on the link I gave you) that my assertions were utterly false."
Perhaps you should instead be sorry for not taking sufficient measures to guard against misinformation from people like LaBarbera. Instead of accepting his assertion at face value and repeating it with full agreement, maybe you should have done the tiniest speck of research, like reading the IHRA?
Illinois churches will not be forced to hire gays because they don't qualify as "employers" under the IHRA. Period. LaBarbera didn't lie, because the amendment doesn't exempt churches, but LaBarbera definitely deceived people because the amendment *doesn't need to* exempt churches. The effective exemption *already exists* in the full act that is being amended.
Joe,
Sigh. You're still not getting it.
Yes, of course the law being ammended contains the exemption. All the news articles I saw said or implied that, including the one cited. The point, as made above, is that the new amendment to the law (SB3186) does not... or so say the legal experts.
Had you read closely you might have stopped before embarrasing yourself yet again.
Next, I would like to ask whom I am to believe here...
In one corner, I have a commenter who has a snide attitude and clearly didn't even read the article before leveling charges of "deception" against a blogger who merely commented on it. And who is still, apparently, pointing to the wrong bit of law. He claims the new amendment's provision about sexual orientation will not apply to churches.
In other corner we have several news publications and "Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues" -- not merely some Christian group with a possible axe to grind.
Also opposing your interpretation, apparently, is the Bill's sponsor Carol Ronen. Had you have read the article I pointed you to, you would have read:
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."
So both the bill's sponsor and an independent law firm specializing in these matter say it will apply to churches. As does my own reading of the amendment.
So, lacking any evidence to the contrary, who am I to believe? I think that's a no-brainer.
Next, I'd note even if you are somehow right here, it still would be inappropriate to say I was the source of the deception, as you alleged -- the supposed crime for which you flagellated me. Your charge against me was that I mischaracterized the article, and not that the article itself was false. A charge you now tacitly admit is false by attempting to change the subject.
Finally, a word about standards. First, let me state my standard: I think you ought to at least read an article before accusing someone who commented upon it of a serious charge like "deception." Perhaps that's too much to ask -- I dunno.
Now, your new standard: I am apparently somehow morally culpable because I did what all of us do every day -- believed a news report. I am apparently some kind of bad person because I didn't do the maximum amount of research possible before commenting upon it.
Well, I freely admit I don't stack up very well by this new ethical standard you've discovered. You should definitely find another blog to read: one which never comments upon an article before doing the maximum research possible, such as looking up, reading, and correctly legally analysing the full text of all the law involved before commenting on a news report about a piece of state legislation.
That, of course, is a higher standard than even newspapers follow, but hey, you're welcomed to it.
But of course, this raises an interesting point: It seems to me you now stand convicted, twice more, by this new ethical standard you seem to want to invoke against me.
You clearly didn't even read the article before you wrote your first comment. That's well below this new standard you're now putting on others.
Then, for your second comment, you didn't read the article closely, or check for other articles, which stated the distinction more explicitly. Had you done so, you wouldn't have cited the wrong bit of law, and understood that it is the law's SPONSOR, and an independent law firm -- and not merely some Christian group -- who is apparently saying so. So no, you didn't do all the homework you could have. Such as thinking about the article you read, or re-reading it a few times to make sure you understood it correctly.
(Hey, I can easily understand making such a mistake -- I do it all the time. But it appears to be morally reprehensible under your newfound standard, not mine.)
So uh, again: lighten up a bit, okay? Be a little easier on others, and maybe it won't keep bouncing back and convicting you. Ever heard that we'll be judged as we judge others? Ponder that.
Best to you.
"Yes, of course the law being ammended contains the exemption. All the news articles I saw said or implied that, including the one cited. The point, as made above, is that the new amendment to the law (SB3186) does not... or so say the legal experts."
No, the amendment doesn't contain the exception. It doesn’t need to. You still don't get it. The definition of "employer" doesn't change. Adding "sexual orientation" to the list of protected categories is all that happens. If they added "height" to the list, the result would be the same: religious corporations wouldn't be forced to hire anyone of any height.
You're reading of the amendment is that it will apply to churches? Fine: explain to your readers how churches won't be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation but will be able to continue discriminating based on race or sex, using only the text of the law to support your argument.
I shan't hold my breath.
"Had you have read the article I pointed you to, you would have read..."
I did read it. Who cares what he thinks? All that matters is what the law actually says - and the law doesn't say that churches won't be able to discriminate against gays. What, you've never heard of a law's sponsor being wrong?
"I'd note even if you are somehow right here, it still would be inappropriate to say I was the source of the deception, as you alleged -- the supposed crime for which you flagellated me."
I alleged no such thing. I said that your headline is false and your analysis is false. Doesn't matter if the original information came from somewhere else - once you link approvingly to something, you have to take responsibility for that.
"Now, your new standard: I am apparently somehow morally culpable because I did what all of us do every day -- believed a news report. I am apparently some kind of bad person because I didn't do the maximum amount of research possible before commenting upon it."
Actually reading the law being amended is the "maximum amount of research possible"? That's a hoot. You're standards are pretty low if you can't even be bothered to do that before rendering judgment.
I agree with you: A naive reading of the law in question -- such as a non-lawyer like you or I might render -- doesn't immediately suggest a problem.
But that's utterly irrevelant. It has almost no bearing on the matter whatsoever.
This isn't physics. This isn't philosophy. Lawyers and judges play by rules which aren't on the table or in the text. They use precedents we laymen are unaware of to decide how the law is to be construed. For example...
In 1970, where would we have found a right to abortion on demand until the third trimester in the US Constitution? Nowhere. Massachussets' state constitution clearly defined marriage as a union between man and woman. Where would we have found permission (much less a requirement!) for gay marriage there? It wasn't in the obvious text of the law but judges decided it was indeed present.
In light of this, my weighting system goes something like this: Opinons of the bill's authors and supporters: 1. Outside legal experts: 1. Your opinon of what the law "says": 0. Mine: 0.
Ungaretti & Harris, who actually do know something about this area, clearly feel a conflict regarding church employment is a possible outcome:
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... [T]he measure may ultimately force courts to consider and balance its ban on sexual orientation discrimination with State and Federal constitutional safeguards of religious freedom.
You feel the law is clear. If so, why does U&H feel this could lead to a conflict involving church's ability to hire? If your reading (and mine) is so accurate and definitive, where are these lawyers going wrong when they (mistakenly, to believe you) think this might be an open question?
Next, here's the bill's sponsor, as quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times:
Sen. Carol Ronen (D-Chicago), one of the prime architects of the legislation, said churches and religious groups need to be held to the same anti-discrimination standards as the rest of society.
"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. I don't believe this law will impact their being able to carry out their mission and do the work they need to do," she said.
If the modified body of law's impact is exactly as you say, then what is Ronen going on about? Hmmm?
A top legal expert in Illinois' employment law and the bill's own sponsor both agree it could have a certain impact. They're both wrong, because -- hey -- you read the law yourself. And I agreed with them. So in order for me to be wrong, they must be wrong also, apparently.
The US Constitution expressly delegates all other powers to the states, including regulation of sexual behavior. In the recent Texas sodomy case: (a) the text of the law (both state and Constitution) was absolutely clear, and (b) there was a long legal precedent of allowing states to regulate such behavior.
And yet my guess, based on these factors, that Lambda law (who argued against the sodomy law) was in the wrong was proven incorrect. Reading the law and even studying the precedent was not a good way of determining how the courts would construe the law.
Ronen has undoubtedly worked with Equality Illinois -- and thus perhaps also Lambda, directly or indirectly -- regarding these changes.
If she's saying, after it's been passed, that it's going to have a certain effect, one can reasonably suspect she has some reason for doing so: that the mechanisms for doing so have already been worked out, and will be deployed when the chance arises.
Perhaps you're right. I won't deny it's possible. But I disagree with your implication that it's irresonsible for me to believe Ronen's charactization of her own legislation. Much less when U&H agree she could be right.
Finally, to answer your demands, and to hazard a guess, and also give you a tip-off as to where I suspect Ronen is going with this...
In a recent New Jersey case against the Boy Scouts, the NJ supreme court held that the presence of a gay scoutmaster didn't interfere with the group's ability to disseminate their viewpoint. (Ronen, interestingly and perhaps tellingly, is making the exact same argument regarding the Catholic church.) Some variant on that theme could be used to argue that the forced inclusion of a person of a different sexual orientation would not interefere church's first-amendment rights to spread their religion.
Next, note that "sexual orientation" is now officially a protected protected category on the same footing as religion. This means that the state now has as much interest in protecting sexual oriention or behavior as it does in protecting religious viewpoint.
Futher, note that in some sections of IHRA (such as in the anti-blockbusting provisions in article 3), churches who discriminate on the bases of race, national origin, etc. already may lose their protected status. So there's a precedent for losing protected status by discriminating against protected categories beside religion.
So, lacking an explicit statement to the contrary, if the court decides there is no conflict between the right of a church to disseminate it's beliefs and the protection of an individual's sexual orientation, and that there already exist cases where churches are forbidden to discriminate against other protected categories, it can then be argued that churches' exemption from sexual orientation discrimination is unnecessary, inconsistent with other provisions that revoke church's rights once they discriminate non-religiously (as in the housing section), and thus constitutes an unnecessary and therefore unconstitutional invitation to discriminate.
(This could be further advanced by noting the Illinois Bill of Rights says: "but the liberty of conscience [of religious worship] hereby secured shall not be construed to ... justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State of Illinois" and then arguing race-, national-origin, and sexual-orientation discrimination are examples of such an "inconsistent" practice. The general construction of article 3 could be marshalled as evidence for this.)
I can think of a few more ways of going at it, and there's some details I'm omitting above for brevity, but that's enough for now -- a real court challenge would explore all avenues simultaneously, as Lambda's Texas sodomy challenge did.
Just a guess, of course. But parts of that have been agreed to by various courts, and it is sounding like Ronen's barking up the same tree.
But hey, like I said: That's worth nothing.
Have a nice day.
I will have a post up soon that will help all Illinois to organize against this violation of the first ammendment!
http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com
http://www.stoptheaclu.org
Look at the situation this way. Churches generally would have freedom of religion and so be exempt from hiring gays. However, most churches are state corporations. Since they were created by the state they are subject to public policy laws enacted by the state. That is why for now the IHRA specifically exempts "religious corporations" from its provisions. But it can change that provision any time they desire. The free church (one that is not a state corporation) is like a regular person. They have the right to freedom of religion, but when you voluntarily enter into contracts your rights are sometimes limited because of that contract. This is what is happening to our churches today and this is why the state can actually force the churches to follow these hiring guidelines. The way to keep religious freedom is to not voluntarily enter into a contract with the state through incorporation. According to the Supreme Court, corporations exist for the piblic benefit. The state gets to decide that public benefit because they are the ones who created the corporation entity. Churches need to stop incorporating so they can truly enjoy their freedom of religion. If you would like to learn more you could go to this interesting site: http://hushmoney.org
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Nazi School Prayers |
Front Page |
Page Two
| What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism »
|
"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."
So, it's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion.
"Well, if that makes sense, why not also mandate Christians churches hire atheists and Satanists? I mean, for example, why should they still also be allowed to discriminated against as pastors on religious grounds? That's just as "protected" as sexual orientation, no?"
Actually, yes, it is - it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. But churches aren't forced to hire Satanists, are they? No. That's because churches are exempt from these laws when it comes religious jobs (I don't think they are exempt when it comes to something like a janitor, but that might vary from state to state).
Churches can already discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex when hiring. Adding sexual orientation to the list doesn't mean that churches will have to hire gays as pastors. The "separation of church and state" that you decry protects the churches from violating their beliefs in this. Ronen might think that it should apply to churches, but he might think the same about the ban on racial discrimination. So what? Doesn't change the law, which is that churches are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.
Your headline is false. Your analysis is false. You didn't do your homework and leaped to false conclusions.
Posted by: Joe on January 25, 2005 05:09 AM