A hundred major corporations, ranging from Target to American Airlines to Best Buy, have signed on to an LGBTQ activist coalition supporting the “Equality Act,” which would federalize homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights” categories in the law.

The homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says the bill, HR 2282, is about “letting Americans live their lives without fear of discrimination,” but pro-family organizations counter that the “Inequality Act” (as Family Research Council calls it) would expressly undermine people’s religious freedom to act against homosexuality and extreme gender confusion (transgenderism), e.g., by declining to participate in same-sex “marriages.”

The sweeping legislation, introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, has 194 Democratic co-sponsors and two Republican co-sponsors. With little action on the bill likely in a GOP-dominated Congress, HRC is taking its campaign for HR 2282 to the corporate world, where its institutional influence and power greatly exceeds that of social conservatives.

HR 2282, as described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”

The bill prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from “discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, subject to the same exceptions and conditions that currently apply to unlawful employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to CRS.

The bill’s far-reaching impact would greatly expand the potential for lawsuits against private individuals who choose not to affirm behaviors they regard as immoral before God. Already, using state and local “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws, LGBTQ activists and their allies have made life difficult for people opposing “gay marriage” and “proud” homosexuality and transsexualism — from wedding cake makers and wedding photographers to t-shirt makers and even bar owners.

The CRS summary of HR 2282 states:

“The bill expands the categories of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide:

— exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays;

— goods, services, or programs, including a store, a shopping center, an online retailer or service provider, a salon, a bank, a gas station, a food bank, a service or care center, a shelter, a travel agency, a funeral parlor, or a health care, accounting, or legal service; or

— transportation services.”

Noting the expanded definition of “public accommodation” under the proposed legislation, FRC states: “Thus, if the Inequality Act passes, attorneys will likely be required to represent homosexuals in dissolving their same-sex ‘marriages,’ Christian schools will likely be required to offer transgendered students the bathroom of their choice, and Christian homeless shelters will likely be required to accommodate same-sex couples.”

According to the CRS, HR 2282 defines “gender identity” as “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” The bill states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “may bring a civil action if it receives a complaint from an individual” who claims to be “denied equal utilization of a public facility … (other than public schools or colleges) on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Thus, under HR 2282, a “male-to-female” “transgender” activist could sue an amusement park if it refused to let him, as a biological male, enter the public women’s restrooms (since amusement parks would be covered under the Act as “public accommodations”).

HRC quotes Dow Chemical employee Cory Valente in defense of the “Equality Act”: “No one should be fired, evicted from their home, or denied services because of who they are. Supporting inclusion and equality is the right thing to do – for business and for society.”

But FRC states that by expressly stripping away the protections of federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”–designed to protect citizens’ conscience rights–the pro-LGBTQ “Inequality Act” “would force people to affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism, despite their religious objections in various situations, including the provision of public accommodations.”

“This is the antithesis of religious freedom,” the pro-family group asserts.

HRC’s rigged rating system pressures corporations

HRC has employed to great effect its skewed “Corporate Equality Index” “scorecard” system to pressure corporations to ratchet up their pro-homosexual and pro-“transgender” policies. Under the ratings system, companies get points for giving money to pro-LGBTQ activities but they potentially lose 25 points if they do anything that HRC considers to be a “large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish” (see page 8 here).

Thus, even neutral corporate giving policies — say, if a company’s executives wanted to avoid taking sides by financially supporting both pro-LGBT groups and organizations like the American Family Association — would be boxed out for any corporation seeking a perfect HRC “Equality Index” score.

And under the HRC’s self-serving “Index,” companies must comply with an ever-expanding list of pro-LGBTQ demands to continue receiving a “100 percent” ranking.

The strategy has been immensely successful for HRC, with even once-conservative corporations like Walmart joining its “100 percent” club — which includes paying for “transgender” employees “sex-reassignment surgeries” through company health insurance plans. Walmart now finances “gay pride” events like the annual New York City “pride parade.”

HRC reports the following 100 major corporations as members of its “Coalition for the Equality Act”:

Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Accenture

Adobe Systems Inc.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

Airbnb Inc.

Alcoa Inc.

Amazon.com Inc.

American Airlines

American Eagle Outfitters

American Express Global Business Travel

Apple Inc.

Arconic

Ascena Retail Group Inc.

Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Bain & Co. Inc.

Bank of America

Best Buy Co. Inc.

Biogen

Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp.

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc.

Brown-Forman Corp.

CA Technologies Inc.

Caesars Entertainment Corp.

Capital One Financial Corp.

Cardinal Health Inc.

Cargill Inc.

Chevron Corp.

Choice Hotels International Inc.

Cisco Systems Inc.;

The Coca-Cola Co.

Corning Inc.

Cox Enterprises Inc.

CVS Health Corp.

Darden Restaurants Inc.

Delhaize America Inc.

Diageo North America

The Dow Chemical Co.

Dropbox Inc.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont)

eBay Inc.

EMC Corp.

Facebook Inc.

Gap Inc.

General Electric Co.

General Mills Inc.

Google Inc.

HERE North America LLC

The Hershey Company

Hewlett Packard Enterprises

Hilton Inc.

HP Inc.; HSN Inc.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Hyatt Hotels Corp.

IBM Corp.

Intel Corp.

InterContinental Hotels Group Americas

Johnson & Johnson

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Kaiser Permanente; Kellogg Co.

Kenneth Cole Productions

Levi Strauss & Co.; Macy’s Inc.

Marriott International Inc.

MasterCard Inc.; Microsoft Corp.

Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams

Monsanto Co.

Moody’s Corp.

Nationwide

Navigant Consulting Inc.

Nike Inc.

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Office Depot Inc.

Oracle Corp.

Orbitz Worldwide Inc.

Paul Hastings LLP

PepsiCo Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

Pure Storage Inc.

Qualcomm Inc.

Replacements Ltd.

S&P Global Inc.

Salesforce

SAP America Inc.

Sodexo Inc.

Symantec Corp.

Synchrony Financial

T-Mobile USA Inc.

Target Corp.

Tech Data Corp.

TIAA

Twitter Inc.

Uber Technologies Inc

Under Armour Inc

Unilever

Warby Parker

WeddingWire Inc.

Whirlpool Corporation

Williams-Sonoma Inc.

Xerox Corp.

This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews.com

“If you believe in traditional marriage and historic Christianity — watch out — there is a powerful organization that is trying to marginalize you by designating you as a hater — and they could even put your life in danger.”

With those words, Frank Wright, President and CEO of D. James Kennedy Ministries begins the 30-minute video “Profits of Hate: The Southern Poverty Law Center Special.”

The SPLC is redefining the word hate so it applies to anyone who disagrees with the radical left-wing agenda of the SPLC.

In this informative presentation, leaders of Christian organizations are interviewed about the growing danger of the SPLC’s influence in the media and in culture. Too many people believe the organization is an unbiased arbiter. Much of that is because the organization’s reputation is based upon the fact that it did some good work towards the end of the civil rights era.

As genuine hate groups like the KKK began to fade, the SPLC looked for a new way to keep the money flowing into the organization. Calling Christian organizations “hate groups” to raise money from radical Leftists has turned out to be very profitable. The organization’s coffers contain roughly $300 million dollars, with a sizable chunk of that money stashed in overseas accounts.

The video cites two shootings that are directly tied to the SPLC. In 2012, a man using the SPLC “hate” list, attempted to kill several people at the offices of the Family Research Council. Earlier this year, another fan of the SPLC sought to assassinate several Republican members of Congress.

Frank Wright states that it is a “modern form of insanity” for anyone to believe that Christian historian David Barton should listed alongside admitted racist David Duke on the SPLC’s “hate” map.
The mask has come off the Southern Poverty Law Center, and this video needs to be seen by millions of Americans. Please watch it and help spread the word.

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

The Illinois Family Institute has been covering the scandal surrounding the Southern Poverty Law Center for years, and now IFI has joined forces with the leaders of over three dozen conservative organizations from coast to coast to raise awareness about the true nature of the SPLC.

Here is the opening of a letter signed by leaders of those conservative organizations:

Dear Members of the Media:

We are writing to you as individuals or as representatives of organizations who are deeply troubled by several recent examples of the media’s use of data from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a “hate group” label of its own invention and application that is not only false and defamatory, but that also endangers the lives of those targeted with it.

The Illinois Family Institute’s David E. Smith was one of the letter’s signatories. Smith was joined by leaders of groups such as the Media Research Center, the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and Liberty Counsel.

The heavily footnoted 8-page letter also includes this:

The SPLC is an attack dog of the political left. Having evolved from laudable origins battling the Klan in the 1970’s, the SPLC has realized the profitability of defamation, churning out fundraising letters, and publishing “hit pieces” on conservatives to promote its agenda and pad its substantial endowment (of $319 million). Anyone who opposes them, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives is slandered and slapped with the “extremist” label or even worse, their “hate group” designation. At one point, the SPLC even added Dr. Ben Carson to its “extremist” list because of his biblical views (and only took him off the list after public outcry).

To associate public interest law firms and think tanks with neo-Nazis and the KKK is unconscionable, and represents the height of irresponsible journalism. All reputable news organizations should immediately stop using the SPLC’s descriptions of individuals and organizations based on its obvious political prejudices.

The letter has been released to the media, and is currently circulating to CNN, MSNBC, AP, ABC and others.

A hard-hitting social media post from the Family Research Council opens with this:

The Southern Poverty Law Center was too intolerant for the U.S. Army, too controversial for the FBI, and too inflammatory for the Obama Justice Department. Now, after receiving harsh criticism from conservatives across the country, GuideStar has decided to temporarily remove SPLC’s hate labels from their website. In addition to these prominent entities distancing themselves from the extremist group, two lawsuits involving SPLC are now in place: one from Liberty Counsel and one from former Islamic extremist turned anti-extremist activist, Maajid Nawaz. But despite SPLC’s baggage — which also includes connections to two liberal gunmen – they continue to be cited as a credible source by mainstream media and others. With SPLC in the spotlight, we must expose this organization for what it really is – a leftwing smear group who has become exactly what they set out to fight, spreading hate and putting targets on people’s backs.

The social media campaign is up and running, and IFI supporters are encouraged to help spread the word.

Here are other articles of note about the letter:

Newsbusters broke the story: Conservatives Urge Media: Cut Ties With SPLC Over Dangerous ‘Hate Map’

PJMedia was right behind with their own story: 47 Nonprofit Leaders Denounce the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Hate List’ in Open Letter to the Media

This scandal is also worthy of greater attention: The Southern Poverty Law Center Has $69 Million Parked Overseas

Please share through all your channels — this effort needs to be recognized by as many outlets as possible. Also, please share new content as it comes out today. Here are some of FRC’s tweets with links to stories today:

Conservatives Urge Media: Cut Ties with @splcenter over Dangerous 'Hate Map' @k_yoder @newsbusters https://t.co/upxxzIiYX4 #SPLCexposed

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

JUST IN: Conservative Movement Releases Open Letter to the News Media: Beware of the Southern Poverty Law Center https://t.co/pFikHv7vV0

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

We're joining 47 conservative leaders, orgs to ask the media to stop using data from discredited @splcenter. Letter: https://t.co/ulYk0qmvRF pic.twitter.com/me632tP1Ik

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

All news outlets should immediately stop using SPLC’s descriptions of individuals/orgs based on its obvious prejudices. #SPLCexposed pic.twitter.com/I0BRpDm6kW

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

.@splcenter has realized the profitability of defamation. This is what they're really about. https://t.co/ulYk0q4V07 #SPLCexposed pic.twitter.com/8Isn3lEZcq

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

To associate public interest law firms and think tanks with neo-Nazis and the KKK is unconscionable. https://t.co/pFikHv7vV0 #SPLCexposed pic.twitter.com/H2b0bBuu0r

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) September 6, 2017

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

It does make a difference.

SPLC, once a valued organization fighting for civil rights of minorities, refocused some time ago. Part of that “refocusing” resulted in the group’s publication of a “hate map” several years ago. James Wright, head of D. James Kennedy Ministries, is very familiar with the hate map.

“Initially it was related to the question of marriage and the gay agenda,” he shares. “[But] these days if you’re on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate map, it might be anything from your stand on immigration, to radical Islam, to the sanctity of human life, to marriage, to whatever.”

GuideStar has re-published the hate map and Amazon’s charitable contributions don’t go to those groups listed thereon. That includes D. James Kennedy Ministries, which has filed suit in Alabama federal court alleging discrimination and libel against all three organizations.

Wright argues that SPLC, GuideStar, and Amazon have labeled his organization and many others as hate groups for one simple reason: “To try to silence us,” he says. “They don’t want to deal with us on the issues. They want to silence us and make us a marginal voice in the culture.”

He goes on to say “their definition of hate is both morally and intellectually dishonest, unjustifiable” – and that the only way to deal with it is to have the three groups prove their definition of hate before a jury of peers. Thus, the lawsuit.

Apple’s profits going to the SPLC

A spokesman for another group on the “hate map” says it’s dangerous when people are so blinded by their ideology that they finance organizations such as the SPLC. That comment comes in the wake of Apple Corporation CEO Tim Cook announcing his company is donating $1 million to the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League.

Abraham Hamilton III, general counsel and policy analyst for the American Family Association, responds to the donation.

Hamilton offers a solution to deal with Apple’s announced plan to use profits from the sales of its products to support organizations like the SPLC – organizations he says “encourage hate” and are “radically, ideologically driven” and pro-abortion.

“[When] you see this happening, the best way to respond is to vote with your pocketbook,” he tells OneNewsNow.

In other words, consumers will decide whether Apple’s move is good for public relations.

I was hoping not to step into the sticky wicket that the Charlottesville protest, counter-protest, and at

tack created. All discussions of fault or causation carry the risk of being labeled a bigot or hater. But, for a number of reasons, fearful silence is not a justifiable response.

Southern Poverty Law Center 

One of those reasons is that the Plainfield Patch published an article titled “Illinois Hate Groups: Map Shows Active Racist Organizations” in which the Patch cites the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to alert Illinoisans to the presence of “32 hate” groups in Illinois, including the Illinois Family Institute.

It is both morally indefensible and intellectually dishonest of the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center to include the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) on its list of “hate” groups, alongside repugnant white supremacist groups/white separatists/white nationalists.

IFI is included on this list because we espouse theologically orthodox views of homosexuality, marriage, and the intrinsic and profound meaning of objective, immutable biological sex—views that are held by the Catholic Church, a dozen Protestant denominations, the Mormon Church, Seventh Day Adventism, many non-denominational churches, 2,000 years of church history, the Bible, and Orthodox Judaism.

Other Christian organizations included on the SPLC “hate” groups list are the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, and the Ruth Institute.

The goal of the SPLC’s malignant slander is to stigmatize and marginalize any group that defends marriage and sexual morality. Is the Plainfield Patch absolved of all moral culpability for smearing IFI because technically all it did was cite the anti-Christian hate group known euphemistically as the SPLC?

To be clear, the Illinois Family Institute and its sister organization Illinois Family Action—both of which have blacks serving on our boards–unequivocally denounce racism and hatred directed at any persons.

White Separatism and racism

Every decent person and certainly every Christian should denounce the vile racist beliefs of white separatists/white supremacists. We should condemn the actions of the domestic terrorist who launched his car into a crowd to mow down those whose beliefs he rejected. His actions (and the beliefs that impelled them) are as repugnant as those that led to lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and the Holocaust.

Christians must speak truth even when doing so is difficult. In a letter to his son who has embraced the ugly and false beliefs of what has come to be called the “alt-right,” a father reveals what commitment to truth may entail:

On Friday night, my son traveled to Charlottesville, Va., and was interviewed by a national news outlet while marching with reported white nationalists, who allegedly went on to kill a person.

I, along with all of his siblings and his entire family, wish to loudly repudiate my son’s vile, hateful and racist rhetoric and actions. We do not know specifically where he learned these beliefs. He did not learn them at home.

I have shared my home and hearth with friends and acquaintances of every race, gender and creed. I have taught all of my children that all men and women are created equal. That we must love each other all the same.

Evidently Peter has chosen to unlearn these lessons, much to my and his family’s heartbreak and distress. We have been silent up until now, but now we see that this was a mistake. It was the silence of good people that allowed the Nazis to flourish the first time around, and it is the silence of good people that is allowing them to flourish now.

Peter Tefft, my son, is not welcome at our family gatherings any longer. I pray my prodigal son will renounce his hateful beliefs and return home. Then and only then will I lay out the feast.

He once joked, “The thing about us fascists is, it’s not that we don’t believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We’ll just throw you in an oven.”

Peter, you will have to shovel our bodies into the oven, too. Please son, renounce the hate, accept and love all.

The proper response to racial hatred is not the curtailment of speech rights, the destruction of property, or violent vigilantism. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mr. Tefft understood what antifa anarchists clearly do not.

Antifa’s anarchism

Peter Beinart, associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, writes about the history and current incarnation of the troubling antifa movement in an article in the Atlantic titled “The Rise of the Violent Left”:

Since antifa is heavily composed of anarchists, its activists place little faith in the state, which they consider complicit in fascism and racism. They prefer direct action: They pressure venues to deny white supremacists space to meet. They pressure employers to fire them and landlords to evict them. And when people they deem racists and fascists manage to assemble, antifa’s partisans try to break up their gatherings, including by force.

Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left.

…

The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like [Richard] Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down [an online website for “anarchists” and “autonomous anti-capitalists”] celebrated the “righteous beatings.”

…

As members of a largely anarchist movement, antifascists don’t want the government to stop white supremacists from gathering. They want to do so themselves, rendering the government impotent. 

…

Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

…

The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.

The causes of both racial hatred and anarchism are numerous and complex. As Americans grapple with understanding them and finding solutions, I hope and pray they will think deeply about the causative roles these three phenomena play in rendering young people—particularly young men—vulnerable to racist or anarchistic ideologies:

• the absence of faith in the one true God

• the break-up of nuclear families and the concomitant absence of fathers

• the dissemination in government schools of Critical Theory, which teaches students that whites are oppressors based on nothing other than their skin color

Pastor and theologian John Piper reminds Christians that what unites humans—what humans of all races and ethnicities share in common—is far greater, more profound, and more substantive than the things that divide us:

In determining the significance of who you are, being a person in the image of God compares to ethnic distinctives the way the noonday sun compares to a candlestick. In other words, finding your main identity in whiteness or blackness or any other ethnic color or trait is like boasting that you carry a candle to light the cloudless noonday sky. Candles have their place. But not to light the day. So color and ethnicity have their place, but not as the main glory and wonder of our identity as human beings. The primary glory of who we are is what unites us in our God-like humanity, not what differentiates us in our ethnicity.

Recovering and passing on to our children an understanding of the political principles on which the greatest country in the history of the world was founded is essential to fostering unity amid diversity. So too is faith in God.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
(William Butler Yeats)

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Last October the Illinois Family Institute brought attention to the “Free Speech Fairness Act.” Now faith leaders from around the country, including IFI’s executive director David E. Smith, are signing a letter addressed to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy calling for the passage of the bill. This letter was delivered earlier this week.

Here is the opening paragraph of the letter:

We, the undersigned, representing hundreds of thousands of Americans, want to thank you for your commitment to preserving the rights secured in the First Amendment of the Constitution, specifically the rights to freedom of religion and speech. Unfortunately, since its passage, the Johnson Amendment has effectively squelched both of those rights in the context of activities that could be construed by the IRS as on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. That is why we support the Free Speech Fairness Act of 2016 (H.R. 781, “Fairness Act”), introduced by Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Representative Jody Hice (R-Ga.) to protect the speech and religious freedom rights of 501(c)(3) organizations and their leaders. We encourage you to prioritize hearings and votes on this important bill.

A lot has been written about the existing and growing threats to religious liberty for the past couple of years, and the infamous “Johnson Amendment” even became an issue during the presidential campaign.

H.R. 781 would restrict enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against churches and other non-profit groups for whom the law was never intended. You can find more information about that legislation by clicking here, as well as a great deal more information on the Johnson Amendment here.

In addition, both the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom have information posted outlining the details of the legislation and why it is needed. FRC has published a one-page outline that answers the following questions:

• What Does the Bill Do?
• Why is the Bill Needed?
• What’s The Background on the Johnson Amendment?
• Has the IRS Gone After Nonprofits For Speaking Out On Political Issues?
• Who Supports the Bill or the Policies Represented in the Bill?

At their website, the Alliance Defending Freedom lists “5 Things to Know about the New Johnson Amendment Fix“:

1. The bill fixes but does not repeal the Johnson Amendment.
2. The bill applies to all 501(c)(3) entities, not just churches.
3. The bill does not turn churches and charities into political action committees.
4. The bill is constitutionally sound.
5. The bill is the first step in getting Congress to fix what it created in 1954.

Both FRC and ADF have videos posted that also outline the facts — here is ADF’s 3-minute video:

So many moral issues in the political arena must be addressed by church leaders inside the church – and not just by Christians outside the church. We must reclaim our God-given First Amendment right of free speech. It doesn’t just belong to those on one side of the debate.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to ask him/her to support or even co-sponsor this legislation. Speak up for free speech by telling them you want the Johnson Amendment repealed. Tell them they can start the process by cosponsoring H.R. 781, the Free Speech Fairness Act.

As of this writing, H.R. 781 has 57 Republican co-sponsors, including Illinois’ U.S. Representatives Randy Hultgren (Campton Hills) and John Shimkus (Effingham).

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Written by Katrina Trinko

So much for taking America’s “fake news” problem seriously.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, there’s been an abundance of hand-wringing over the “fake news” that supposedly is rampant on social media.

Yet missing has been any kind of serious searching among the mainstream media about whether it could learn any lessons from this election—and whether reporters and editors are holding themselves accountable to their supposed values of objectivity and rigorous reporting.

And a new “study” presents Exhibit A as to why the mainstream media should reconsider its own practices.

The Southern Poverty Law Center—an organization that calls the Family Research Council an “extremist group” because of its socially conservative views on LGBT matters—reported Nov. 29 that “in the 10 days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation.”

“Many harassers invoked Trump’s name during assaults,” the report continued, “making it clear that the outbreak of hate stemmed in large part from his electoral success.”

Cue the widespread coverage:

• “Nationwide, there have been more than 867 incidents of ‘hateful harassment’ in the first days following the election, the Southern Poverty Law Center says,” reported CNN.

• “In the 10 days following the November election, SPLC said it collected 867 hate-related incidents on its website and through the media from almost every state,” wrote the Associated Press.

• NBC News headlined its piece on the study “Southern Poverty Law Center Reports ‘Outbreak of Hate’ After Election.”

• The Washington Post’s headline blared, “Civil rights group documents nearly 900 hate incidents after presidential election.”

There’s just one issue: The Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t confirm these “nearly 900” incidents actually happened.

“The 867 hate incidents described here come from two sources—submissions to the #ReportHate page on the SPLC website and media accounts,” the SPLC report states. “We have excluded incidents that authorities have determined to be hoaxes; however, it was not possible to confirm the veracity of all reports.”

In other words, who has any idea if these incidents actually happened or not?

Yet, the fact that there was no verification of these incidents didn’t stop the media from covering this “study.”

And let’s not pretend there’s no to very little chance that a Trump opponent would make up a hate crime story.

Just consider this reported hate incident in November: “The men used a racial slur, made a reference to lynching, and warned him this is Donald ‘Trump country now,’ according to the report he gave police,” reported the Boston Herald.

Yet the man wasn’t telling the truth. The Herald reported that Kevin Molis, police chief of Malden, Massachusetts, said “it has been determined that the story was completely fabricated.”

“’The alleged victim admitted that he had made up the entire story,’ saying he wanted to ‘raise awareness about things that are going on around the country,’” the newspaper added, continuing to quote Molis.

So maybe 867 hate crimes happened in the first 10 days after the election. Or maybe 5,000 did. Or maybe five did.

Maybe 10,000 did—and most of them were directed at Trump supporters, not opponents. (Let’s not forget the man beaten in Chicago while someone said, “You voted Trump.”) Who knows?

The SPLC should realize that playing around with facts is no laughing matter.

In 2012, a gunman entered the headquarters of the Family Research Council “with the intent to kill as many employees as possible, he told officers after the incident,” reported Politico. The 29-year-old man, identified as Floyd Lee Corkins II, did shoot and wound a security guard. His motivation?

“Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a ‘hate group’ due to their traditional marriage views,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Ultimately, regardless of what the Southern Poverty Law Center does, the media shouldn’t be giving a platform to faux studies like this.

But maybe it’s not surprising, given attitudes like President Barack Obama’s. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine published Tuesday, the president griped about the reach of Fox News Channel—and then complimented Rolling Stone: “Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone.”

Yes, that Rolling Stone—the news outlet that published the completely discredited University of Virginia gang rape story. In early November, “jurors awarded a University of Virginia administrator $3 million … for her portrayal in a now-discredited Rolling Stone magazine article about the school’s handling of a brutal gang rape [at] a fraternity house,” the Associated Press reported.

It’s tough to hold the media accountable when even the president seems willing to brush aside true instances of fake news.

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors.

This article was originally posted at The DailySignal.com

If you didn’t know who Dan Savage is, it’s probably a good thing. But right now we need you to familiarize yourselves with one of the cruelest, most vile political activists in America.

Why? Because ABC and Disney is airing a sitcom Dan Savage developed loosely based on his life.

A perusal of Dan Savage’s work reveals a career built on advocating violence — even murder — and spewing hatred against people of faith.

Savage has spared no one with whom he disagrees from his vitriolic hate speech. We have examples, but be warned, they are extremely graphic and offensive.

Watch this short Family Research Council video montage of Savage, and you’ll see just how despicable his actions are.

Despite his extremism, vulgarity, and unabashed encouragement of dangerous sexual practices, ABC’s newest sitcom with Savage as its executive producer is now airing on Tuesday evenings at 7:30 p.m. CT.

“The Real O’Neals” mocks Christianity and insults Catholicism. AFA recognizes this show ridicules people of faith, and Christians across America are offended by it.

It is almost impossible to describe the depth of depravity found in the sitcom “The Real O’Neals.” It is impossible to list them all, so here are a few scene descriptions from the show:

• Jesus appears where only the gay son can see and talk to Him, and He is annoyed by the mom’s strict guidelines for her family.
• The daughter steals money she is supposedly raising for charity.
• The daughter “attempts to prove” that there is no God in a science fair project.
• A statue of Mary is kept above the O’Neal’s toilet to remind the boys to put the seat down.
• The first jab at Jesus comes only 52 seconds into the first episode.
• The mother encourages her 16-year-old gay son to “try s-x” with a girl. (A dash ‘-‘ is used to bypass internet filters.)
• Vulgar language (ex. V-gina).
• The mom makes pancakes shaped like the face of Jesus to guilt trip her anorexic son into eating.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to sen an email to Lauren Thompson to let Simply Orange (Coca-Cola) know how disappointed you are to learn that they are spending corporate dollars to promote its products in association with the program “The Real O’Neals.”

You can also call them at: (800) 871-2653 to complain how they are using its advertising dollars to support anti-Christian bigotry and promoting animosity toward people of faith.

Family Research Council (FRC) commends the U.S. House of Representatives for the passage of H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, and urges the U.S. Senate to take up and pass the bill. This bill will restrict for one year funding under several mandatory programs such as Medicaid to abortion entities such as Planned Parenthood and would also repeal key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which encourage subsidies for abortion coverage and which threaten conscience protections.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement about this legislation:

We thank the House for redirecting taxpayer money away from an abortion giant that engages in gruesome and unethical practices.

With a strong majority vote, the House passed a budget reconciliation bill that effectively removes the significant majority of federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in the country, responsible for killing an estimated 340,000 unborn children every year. This represents about one-third of all abortions in the United States.

Additionally, the reconciliation bill strikes a serious blow to Obamacare, the President’s failed healthcare plan, by repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as a government slush fund. This alleviates federal coercion of Americans who are forced to purchase health insurance they may object to because it contains elective abortion coverage, and removes the threat of punishing fines on employers who decline to violate their deeply held beliefs.

Republicans in the Senate now have the opportunity to work toward keeping the campaign promises that helped them secure the Congressional majority. For our friends in the Senate who think the House bill is not strong enough, we encourage them to try and make the measure even better. The House leadership has said they will accept any improvements the Senate makes to the bill that eliminates much of Planned Parenthood’s funding and removes the heart of Obamacare.

I’m pleased to see that the Southern Poverty Law Center has come to its senses and apologized to Dr. Ben Carson, removing him from their “extremist” list. But they need to apologize to me too, since I’m still on their list, along with a number of other Christian leaders whom they have branded anti-gay extremists.

To be sure, I have considered it a badge of honor to be on the SPLC’s list, actually writing an article in 2012 thanking them for placing me in their elite category of “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.”

And, needless to say, I am not a famed children’s neuro-surgeon and potential presidential candidate. In other words, I am not Dr. Ben Carson.

But if the SPLC is truly wanting to do the right thing and this is not simply an embarrassing moment of their own extremism coming to light, then this would be a good time to start apologizing some more.

Several years ago, I received a letter from Mark Potok, spokesman and director of the SPLC, offering to enlighten me in the error of my ways if I, along with others receiving the letter, had been duped by various pro-family organizations.

I immediately reached out to Mr. Potok and the SPLC, but never received a reply.

Subsequently, I wrote a strong open letter to him, once again without receiving a reply.

Perhaps honest dialogue and interaction is not what the SPLC is looking for? Perhaps their radical agenda is based on labeling and defaming their ideological opponents?

The problem, of course, is that the SPLC did lots of wonderful work in the past, exposing hate groups that are worthy of the hate name, such as White Supremacists and Black Supremacists and Neo-Nazis.

Now, tragically, they have added conservative Christian organizations and individuals to their “hate” lists, and many people continue to take their listings seriously.

One man even tried to carry out an act of mass murder at the headquarters of a Christian organization placed on the SPLC’s “hate group” list, finding their location by way of SPLC’s “hate map.”

What makes this all the more disturbing is the specious nature of the evidence they offer in branding conservative Christians “extremists” and labelling their organizations “hate groups.”

I’ll use myself as a case in point.

On their page devoted to me, they write that, “Michael Brown is not typical of most who push the idea that a cabal of liberal media elites have orchestrated a so-called ‘homosexual agenda’ to indoctrinate children into a lifestyle that makes a mockery of Christian values.”

Yet I’m still labelled an “extremist” and listed as one of the “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right.” (Also on this list were men like David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and Malik Zulu Shabbaz, former leader of the New Black Panthers.)

They also write, “Unlike many other voices on the religious right, Brown generally has avoided the kind of slashing rhetoric that often devolves into rank defamation. His work is heavily footnoted and avoids the blanket pronouncements that have gotten others in trouble. But he still can sound conspiratorial.”

I guess you can be careful and nuanced in your wording as well as painstakingly thorough in documenting every statement, yet you can still make it onto their “extremist” list if your viewpoints smack of conservative moral values.

It seems, then, that it is one’s beliefs and values, not the accuracy of one’s claims, that make one an “extremist.”

What, then, is the evidence they cite out of more than 1,000 pages I have written addressing the issue of homosexuality, more than 20 other books on other subjects, and multiplied thousands of hours of radio broadcasts, sermons, and lectures devoted to a wide range of biblical, theological, and social topics?

First, they cite my statement that gay activists deny there is a gay agenda. (I kid you not.)

But this, of course, is a commonly known fact and even forms part of the written semantic strategy of gay activists. In other words, don’t use the term “homosexual agenda” but say, “gay and lesbian civil rights.” (For those who actually deny there’s such a thing as a gay agenda, please tell it to the pantheon of gay activist organizations, such as the HRC, NGLTF, Lamda Legal, GLSEN, GLAAD, and many others. All these organizations have clearly articulated goals and they have helped bring about numerous social changes in recent years, pointing to the success of their agenda.)

Second, the SPLC cites my statement that, “[I]t is not good that homosexual behavior is presented as just another alternative to heterosexual behavior, that bisexuality is celebrated, that transgenderism [sic] is normalized, that sex-change surgery is presented as the thing to do, that ex-gays are ridiculed and their very existence denied.”

Yes, this is part of their evidence that I am a dangerous, radical right, extremist.

Third, they state that, “Brown has also been known to make spurious claims linking homosexuality and pedophilia.”

Actually, in my book A Queer Thing Happened to America, which they cite and quote in their article, I wrote this: MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT EQUATING HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE WITH PEDOPHILIA. MICHAEL BROWN IS NOT CALLING ALL HOMOSEXUALS PEDOPHILES. (Bold caps in the original.)

How could they possibly miss this?

What I have compared is the arguments used by pederast activists and gay activists (such as, I was born this way; I can’t change; this is about love; this is found in all cultures; etc.). I have not compared the acts.

As for the article they reference regarding Jerry Sandusky, I stated there that “the great majority of homosexual men also deplore Sandusky’s alleged acts,” explaining, though, that almost no one wanted to talk about the fact that the acts were homosexual in nature. (Having sex with teenage boys and young men is not the same as raping a baby.)

The SPLC claims that pedophiles who prey on boys are not homosexual predators, but that flies in the face of the history of homosexual “man-boy love,” not to mention ignoring the legal and scientific documents that speak of “homosexual pedophiles” and “heterosexual pedophiles.”

As for the rest of the SPLC’s evidence – well, there is none, aside from taking issue with my call to, “Speak now or forever hold your peace,” by which I mean that we need to speak up now since gay activists and their allies increasingly want to silence people like me. (They do this, for example, by labelling us haters and extremists!)

All that being said, I’m truly honored to be on the hit lists of groups like the SPLC, the HRC, and GLAAD, and I do wear these listings as a badge of honor (see Matthew 5:10-12).

But if the SPLC is truly wanting to make amends for their dangerous and misleading listings, I will gladly accept their apologies and encourage them to apologize to others as well.

If not, I’d love to debate the relevant issues publicly, be it on my radio show or in a neutral, moderated setting, discussing facts rather than allegations. With the vast resources of the SPLC, they should have no problem finding an adequate opponent to take me on.

So, Mr. Potok and other SPLC leaders, what do you say? Will it be an apology or a civil debate?

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com website.

In a story about Bret Baier’s withdrawal from a Catholic conference, where he was going to speak about his Catholic faith, the website known as Mediaite noted that Republican Governor Bobby Jindal (LA) was going to go through with his appearance at the event. But the website warned him about the consequences of offending the homosexual lobby. “Given the controversy that follows U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) more than a decade after he allegedly spoke before a group connected to white supremacists, Jindal, who has presidential ambitions of his own, must be giving his appearance some serious thought right about now,” it said.

Hence, the philosophy of white supremacism associated with the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis is compared to Catholicism. That’s the message this so-called “respectable” source of news and information is sending. Jindal rejected that. The governor’s spokesman said, “Governor Jindal looks forward to addressing the summit and speaking about what faith means to him.”

The summit is sponsored by Legatus, a group that upholds the teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality and other matters.

If Baier was speaking at or attending a fundraiser for the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), that would have been perfectly okay. After all, many Fox media stars, including Megyn Kelly, have done so in the past. In addition, Fox pours money directly into this important lobby in the homosexual movement, and it’s not even a controversy.

What’s fascinating in this case is that the attacks which forced Baier and actor Gary Sinise out of the Legatus conference do not involve opening fire on anybody’s editorial offices and murdering the offenders. These things are mostly done differently in America. I say “mostly” because of the terrorist attack on the Washington, D.C. offices of the Family Research Council (FRC) in 2012. That was inspired by a “hate map” posted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) pinpointing the location of the FRC. A security guard was injured as he stopped a homosexual militant from trying to carry out a massacre in the FRC offices.

In most cases, however, the weapons of character assassination, distortion, and anti-Christian bigotry will suffice. The purpose is to intimidate and ostracize those who dare to associate with groups affirming traditional standards of morality. One of the new tactics, as used by Mediaite, is to associate Catholics with racial extremists. This is a smear that is beneath contempt, but the gay lobby and its fellow travelers will stop at nothing.

The message that the site was sending to Jindal is that he risks his political future by associating with a notorious hate group called the Catholic Church. It was a threat disguised as news.

The leftists have no quarrel with the views of the pope on economic matters. And they certainly won’t quibble with his encyclical on climate change when he issues that in March. But challenging the morality of the lifestyle of so many in Hollywood and the media is something else. Questioning the homosexual lifestyle simply cannot be tolerated.

Jindal, who is a Catholic, didn’t succumb to the pressure. He had the intestinal fortitude to remain true to his beliefs. He understood that the attacks on Legatus were an attack upon his own faith. He couldn’t back down and maintain his own principles. Jindal’s decision to stand up to the modern totalitarians in the gay rights movement has to be seen as courageous.

Backing out is especially troubling in the case of Bret Baier, since his speaking appearance at the Legatus summit was for the purpose of talking about his own Catholic faith expressed in his book, Special Heart: A Journey of Faith, Hope, Courage and Love. He wasn’t there to talk about gay rights. Neither was Sinise, for that matter.

Baier, or his corporate bosses, have to take the blame for giving in to the pressure. We would have thought that the Fox News Channel would have stood firmly for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. It sets a terrible precedent that a “conservative” news channel, which became successful by speaking for many without a traditional voice in the liberal media, should bow at the altar of political correctness. Why they buckled to the pressure is a story in itself.

As we have pointed out, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith is allowed to pontificate on the air, including on behalf of the gay rights cause. But a Bret Baier speech about his book at a Catholic event is supposed to be offensive. This is the state of our media today.

The tactics used by the homosexual lobby have been perfected by such groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American-Islamic Relations against their enemies. What’s new is that the official Catholic Church teachings on human sexuality are now labeled as so offensive that people can’t even be associated with a group that promotes them. This is the kind of religious discrimination we have seen in countries like France against the Jews.

Some in the media called the summit “anti-gay,” which is a complete lie. As Legatus Executive Director John Hunt said in a statement, “Legatus embraces all that the Catholic Church teaches—nothing more, nothing less. Of course, at the core of all that the Church teaches is Christ’s unconditional love for every man and woman. While the Church has and always will teach about the morality of certain behaviors, these teachings are always to be understood in the context of the value of and respect for every human person.”

Turning Christian love into “hate” is an indication of how a situation can be twisted into something it’s not. This is how political correctness, a form of cultural Marxism, works in practice. The homosexual lobby has perfected this tactic of intimidation.

Hunt said the group’s members are only asking for the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs, “which includes the ability to gather together and discuss their faith.”

That such a meeting has become controversial, to the point where major figures in the media and Hollywood can be forced to back out, is a terrible reflection on the condition of the First Amendment right to free speech in America today. The news organizations that are involved in this silencing of freedom of expression have shown they have no understanding of what “I am Charlie” is all about.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

An Idaho pastor and his wife have won a showdown with the city of Couer d’Alene over demands that they preside over same-sex union ceremonies.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who are both ordained Pentecostal ministers, have operated The Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel in Coeur d’Alene since 1989.

City officials had previously informed the Knapps that they must perform same-sex “weddings” at their chapel, or face the potential of a $1000 fine for each day of violation and up to 180 days in jail.

City attorneys said the failure by the couple to do so would violate the city’s non-discrimination ordinance, which prohibits bias against persons based on so-called “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

City officials said the Knapps must comply because The Hitching Post is operated as a for-profit corporation.  The Knapps responded by filing suit in federal court arguing that the edict was a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The Knapps stated publicly that they would shut down The Hitching Post before they would take actions contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Following a controversy that attracted national headlines, city officials have reversed their position.   They now say that the Knapps’ lakeside chapel is exempt from the ordinance because the business is a “religious corporation.”

In their lawsuit, the Knapps asserted that they believe that “God created two distinct genders in His Image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

The weddings conducted by the Knapps are distinctly Christian in nature.  Scriptures are read during the ceremonies, and couples are provided with sermons on Christian marriage and recommended books on the subject.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, says the city’s treatment of the ministers is a predictable result of the “special rights” laws pushed by homosexual advocates.

“We’ve been told that pastors would never be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith.  Yet that’s exactly what is happening here, and it is happening this quickly.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, says that the Hitching Post case reveals the true intentions of the so-called “marriage equality” movement.

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar, and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans.”

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a highly anticipated ruling that affirmed First Amendment  protections of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.  In this particular ruling it means that our government does not have the authority to force family businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods to provide abortifacient drugs and contraceptives in their health care plans.

The Illinois Family Institute celebrates this important decision in favor of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The Court ruled that private companies cannot be forced to comply with onerous federal government mandates that violate their religious beliefs. 

Read or download the entire SCOTUS decision HERE.

No one in America should be forced to violate their deeply held beliefs in order to keep their jobs or run a business.  We should be free to live and work according to our religious beliefs, not the government’s religion.  To put it more bluntly, our government has no business compelling pro-life citizens to bow at the altar of Leftism.  It is a foundational principle on which this country was founded.

In a free, diverse and tolerant society, the government should respect the freedom of citizens to live out their convictions, not just in private but in the way citizens conduct their lives in public as well. 

It must be noted that this was a 5 to 4 vote on ideological lines, which means that barely a majority of the Justices understand that government shouldn’t suppress religious freedom.  On some level it is distressing to know that it took three years and millions of dollars of legal action to affirm what the First Amendment clearly states: that people have a right to live by the dictates of their faith. And in this case, the right not to partake in the destruction of an innocent human life.   While the victory is important and one for which we should be thankful, the fact is that we were within one vote of a significant loss of religious liberty for individuals who own their own business. Don’t misunderstand, I’m very grateful for this victory, but his vote was too close for comfort.

Key to the decision was the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  This federal law does not give license to discrimination, as many on the Left have mistakenly claimed.  Today, the SCOTUS directly repudiated this false notion and specifically reiterated that RFRA provides no defense to discriminate in hiring. No federal or state RFRA has ever been used to discriminate against someone.  In fact, RFRA is actually about preventing discrimination against any American due to their religious beliefs.

Locally, reaction was swift and jubilant.   “I am proud that our Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental religious liberties of American citizens to engage in the free exercise of their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their day to day lives, in business as well as at home,” said Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society.  “Our Justices have affirmed that Americans must not be compelled to put aside their religious beliefs and values as a pre-condition to their entering into the sphere of commerce and making a living for themselves and their families.”

“This ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is a victory for all who cherish religious freedom,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League and one of the national directors of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies. “The movement that began with hundreds of protest rallies outside federal court buildings has just won a great victory inside the nation’s highest Court.”

Response from national organizations was no less enthusiastic.  Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council had this to say:

The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.

All Americans can be thankful that the Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and that the government cannot impose a law on American men and women that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance.

The unfair HHS mandate gave family businesses two non-choices: either violate your deeply held moral beliefs and comply by paying for drugs and services to which you object, or pay crippling fines of up to $100 per day, per employee, for non-compliance. This mandate threatened the jobs, livelihood and healthcare of millions of Americans and forced those who stood up for their conscience, like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, to either comply or be punished.

Thankfully, the threat the HHS mandate imposed on Americans has been deemed unlawful today as a violation of core religious freedom rights.  While we celebrate this landmark decision, it is our hope that lower courts will follow the Supreme Court’s lead and protect non-profits like Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, and Wheaton College from the unfair HHS Mandate.

Dr. Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission sums it up well, “Hobby Lobby [and Conestoga Wood Specialities] refused to render to Caesar what belongs to God: their consciences. The Supreme Court agreed.” 

Help us be your voice for pro-family values! 

Last week, the Family Research Council (FRC) issued a press release in which they publicly ask Illinois’s U.S. Senator Mark Kirk to apologize for his bigoted decision to cancel a U.S. Senate office building room reservation for our friends at the Rockford-based Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society,  a decision Kirk made at the behest of radical homosexual activists.

According to Kirk’s press secretary, Kirk cancelled the meeting because he “will not host groups that advance a hateful agenda.” The so-called “hateful agenda” was a discussion titled, “[W]hat might conservative Americans learn from Russia, Australia, and other nations about rebuilding a pro-family policy?”

Despite the out-pouring of calls and emails from his own constituents and the public appeal from FRC, Kirk has not responded.

In response to Kirk’s narrow-mindedness hostility toward pro-family conservatives, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote an article in which she points out:

Sen. Kirk thinks that it’s hateful to believe that marriage is inherently sexually complementary, but not hateful to kill the unborn. To Kirk, cross-dressing and perverse sexual acts are moral goods and fighting for the rights of children to survive the womb and be raised by a mother and father are moral evils. What kind of man thinks like this? C.S. Lewis calls men like this “men without chests,” and Isaiah warns, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.”

FRC President Tony Perkins also had a strong statement in response to this foolishness:

Sen. Kirk’s decision is true discrimination, silencing anyone who doesn’t adhere to a politically correct view of sexuality.

We welcome open debate about policy differences on social issues. However, Sen. Kirk’s decision to cancel the event signals that he wants to silence those who disagree with him. We are encouraged by the many Illinois residents who have stood up in support of the Howard Center and its right to free speech and freedom of assembly.

Holding a different view of marriage and sexuality is not discriminatory – especially when all the social science research demonstrates the benefits of the natural family.

Sen. Kirk should respect our faith and our views, even if he doesn’t agree with them – instead of literally closing the door to any debate or discussion.

Take ACTION: Don’t let him off the hook! Please click HERE to contact Senator Kirk to express your opposition to his endorsement of homosexual “marriage,” his engagement in religious discrimination, and his subordination of the wishes of Illinois conservatives to the desires of homosexual activists.

You can also call his office in these locations:

(202) 224-2854  —  Washington D.C.
(312) 886-3506  —  Chicago
(217) 492-5089  —  Springfield

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation to support IFI.