1

Pray for the US Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide soon on two closely watched cases that could have a major impact on life and the freedom of conscience in America. Justices will rule on a California law that requires pro-life pregnancy care centers to post notices about the availability of taxpayer funded abortions. And the High Court will be ruling on baker Jack Phillips, the Colorado man who refused, based on his faith, to paint a cake for a same-sex wedding. We need to pray for the US supreme court.

 




Asinine Idea to Protect Christian Vendors from Lawsuits

Legal affairs columnist at The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson, has offered the dumbest idea yet to solve the problem of homosexual couples trying to force Christians to provide goods and services for their faux-weddings.

Michaelson, who writes on “law, religion, and sexuality,” is a graduate of Columbia University and Yale Law School, which provides clear evidence that intelligence and prestigious educations provide no bulwark against foolishness.

Michaelson is also an “affiliated assistant professor at Chicago Theological Seminary,” a “teacher of meditation in a Theravadan Buddhist lineage,” and openly homosexual with a special interest in “queer theology.

Focusing on the case of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose case before the U.S. Supreme Court starts next week, Michaelson proposed this:

All Masterpiece Cakeshop has to do is state that they only provide wedding cakes for weddings that take place at certain churches (and, if they like, synagogues and mosques). Don’t turn people away based on their identities, or the type of wedding they’re conducting. Turn them away based on the place where they are getting married…. That leaves the discrimination up to the religious institution, and churches are allowed to discriminate. They can refuse to host same-sex weddings, interfaith weddings, interracial weddings – whatever. And almost everyone agrees that they should be allowed to do so. Whatever else it means, the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.

That’s a doozy of a “solution.”

First, a few thoughts.

Neither Jack Phillips, nor florist Barronelle Stutzman, nor baker Melissa Klein, nor calligrapher Joanna Duka, nor photographer Elaine Huguenin, nor Bed & Breakfast owner Jim Walder “turned people away based on their identities.” All of these defendants in unjust lawsuits brought by petulant, intolerant homosexual oppressors served homosexuals and provided products to homosexuals—an inconvenient fact that Michaelson omitted. Phillips was willing to sell the homosexuals who are suing him a pre-made cake for their wedding or any other baked goods. Stutzman had sold flowers for years to the homosexual who has sued her, knowing full well his “sexual orientation.”

For the umpteenth time, what these Christians are unwilling to do is provide a service or product for a type of event that the God they serve abhors. For theologically orthodox Christians, marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. The union of Christ the bridegroom and his bride, the church, is a union of two different and complementary entities. They are different in both nature and role. Pretending that the union of two people of the same sex can be a marriage is heresy. In theological terms, such a belief would necessarily mean that there is no difference in nature or role between Christ and his church.

And theologically orthodox Christians throughout the history of the church and today understand that God detests homosexual activity even as he loves those who reject Him and his Word. What a grievous injustice it is for the government to compel Christians to serve, participate in, or provide products for an event that celebrates a union that God detests.

Christians also recognize that true marriage—that is the union of one man and one woman—also serves public and secular purposes. It serves children who have an intrinsic right to know and be raised by both a mother and father–preferably their own biological parents.  Further, the needs of children are best served when they are raised by a mother and father. In serving the needs and rights of children, true marriage also serves society.

Michaelson offered this odd statement: “the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.”

Evidently Michaelson isn’t “woke” to the fact that the First Amendment definitely covers religious individual’s right to decide how to exercise their religion.

Michaelson denies that his solution of providing goods and services only for weddings held in certain churches constitutes religious discrimination:

[S]ince the bakery (or photographer, or florist) is limiting their services to certain physical venues, rather than discriminating against individual customers, the practice is what lawyers call “facially neutral.” If you’re getting married at venue A, B, or C, we can provide a cake for you. Period. You can be of whatever religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity that the venue allows; that’s up to the venues. All the bakery cares about is where the wedding is happening.

None of the Christians being sued is discriminating against individuals. They’re making distinctions between types of events: a union between two people of the same sex is as different from the union of two people of different sexes as a man is from a woman—which homosexuals and “trans” cultists tell us are very different, indeed. So, why is discriminating between venues “facially neutral,” while discriminating between types of events is unjustly discriminatory?

So, now for some questions that may help further illuminate just how asinine Michaelson’s proposed solution is:

1.)  What if a theologically orthodox Christian couple is having their wedding in a home, on the beach, on a mountain top, at an inn, in a hotel, or some other venue? Why should Jack Phillips be precluded from providing a wedding cake for such a wedding?

2.)  What if a denomination or church is in the midst of a schism, with some members upholding orthodoxy and some heresy? And what if a theologically orthodox couple in this church want a cake from the baker? Shouldn’t Phillips be free to provide a cake for this type of event that doesn’t violate his religious convictions?

3.)  What if Phillips wants to serve any sexually complementary couples because of his belief that marriage—which has an ontology—is good for all humans and good for society? Shouldn’t he have the right to serve all such couples regardless of their religion or absence of religion?

Jack Phillips did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He served them many times. He refused to make a type of product he had never made for a type of event he had never served: He declined to make an anti-wedding cake for an anti-wedding.

Marriage has a nature. It is something. Societies historically have recognized and regulated it, but they did not create it out of whole cloth. Marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not and cannot, in reality, be a marriage. A same-sex union is the antithesis of a marriage. It is an anti-marriage. I bet if a homosexual couple were to ask Phillips to make a birthday cake for the birthday of one of their mothers, he would do it. This illustrates that Phillips’ refusal to make an anti-wedding cake does not constitute discrimination against persons based on their “sexual orientation” but, rather, constitutes discriminating among types of events based on his religious beliefs. To paraphrase Michaelson, Phillips doesn’t care about the “sexual orientation” of his customers. All he cares about is the type of event that he’s being asked to serve.

I’ll speculate again. I bet if a man who identifies as homosexual were to choose to marry a woman—perhaps because he wants a traditional family life—Phillips would bake a wedding cake for the reception. Conversely, if two heterosexual women were to choose to marry—perhaps for some pragmatic fiscal reasons—Phillips would likely refuse to make a wedding cake. Both hypotheticals illustrate that Phillips’ refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple has nothing to do with their “sexual orientation.” It is the type of event to which he objects.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asinine-Idea-to-Protect-Christian-Vendors-From-Lawsuits.mp3


A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Make a Donation

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




12 Recent Cases Where Christians Were Punished for Their Beliefs on Marriage

Written by Stoyan Zaimov 

The Family Research Council has compiled a reporting listing 12 cases this past decade in America where Christian business owners have been punished or threatened with punishment for holding traditional beliefs about marriage in order to comply with anti-discrimination laws regarding gay people.

The list began with the 2006 case of Elane Photography, where Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin refused to provide photography for a same-sex wedding between two women, as it went against their beliefs on marriage. They were sued for their refusal to provide the service, and although they went all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court, the state’s anti-discrimination laws won over their religious freedom rights, and they were ordered to pay nearly $7,000 in attorneys’ fees.

As The Washington Post reported, the state human rights commission had found that the Huguenins violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in their refusal to photograph the wedding.

“When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court argued at the time.

The full list of cases, available on the FRC website, goes all the way up to Carl and Angel Larsen of Telescope Media Group, who are facing the danger of being fined up to $25,000 in damages if they refuse to provide media and film services to gay couples on their weddings — and so they filed a suit earlier this year asking Minnesota law to protect them from being compelled to violate their faith.

The other 10 cases are:

  • Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (2007)
  • Wildflower Inn – Jim and Mary O’Reilly (2011)
  • TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast – Jim Walder (2011)
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop – Jack Phillips (2012)
  • Sweet Cakes by Melissa – Aaron and Melissa Klein (2013)
  • Arlene’s Flowers – Barronelle Stutzman (2013)
  • Liberty Ridge Farm – Cynthia and Robert Gifford (2013)
  • Gortz Haus Gallery – Dick and Betty Odgaard (2013)
  • The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel – Don and Evelyn Knapp (2014)
  • Brush & Nib Studio – Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski (2016)

FRC’s report explains in its conclusion that the First Amendment is meant to protect all Americans and their right to practice their faith.

“Requiring a cake-baker, wedding photographer, or other artisan to promote a message that contradicts sincerely-held, personal beliefs certainly violates the First Amendment,” the conservative group argued.

“Compelling artists who support natural marriage to speak a particular message by forcing them to participate in a particular event violates the principles of the First Amendment and oversteps the historical use of public accommodation laws,” it added.


This article was originally posted at ChristianPost.com




More Questions About Dubious Illinois Human Rights Commission

lauries-chinwags_thumbnailYesterday, I wrote about the profoundly unjust decision of the ideologically imbalanced three-member panel of commissioners from the Illinois Human Rights Commission who decided that Christian bed and breakfast owner Jim Walder should pay $80,000 for refusing to rent his facilities to a same-sex couple for their civil union ceremony.

In that article, I questioned both the lack of ideological representation on the panel, which included two homosexual activists and no conservatives, as well as on the full 13-member commission. I questioned whether the commission is skirting the law that prohibits more than 7 members of the same political party from serving on the commission by identifying 2 of its members as Independents when in reality they are Democrats.

There are yet more questions about the political composition of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, this time about Commissioner Hermene Hartman who is identified as one of the five Republicans serving on the 13-member commission.

Hartman is the publisher of Chicago “lifestyle publication” N’DIGO.com. Her bio on Huffington Post describes Hartman as “one of the most significant and influential Black women in American publishing….N’DIGO, was founded in 1989, as a weekly lifestyle publication for progressive readers.”

Hartman was a Democrat until Bruce Rauner ran for governor and began disbursing money in the black community, which included, according to the Chicago Tribune, paying Hartman “$10,000 per month for her outreach efforts.”

After Rauner’s victory, he appointed Hartman to the Illinois Human Rights Commission, where the Chicago Sun Times reports Hartman earns “$46,960-a-year…accompanied by personal insurance perks.”

Interesting fiscal tidbit: The Better Government Association (BGA) reports that “Commissioners devoted an average 12.9 hours per month to official state business for the fiscal year 2011.” That comes out to approximately $322 per hour—on average.

The BGA explained that “Time commitments varied widely, from an average of fewer than seven hours per month to 20 hours.” Those who work 20 hours per month make a paltry $207 per hour, while those who work 7 hours per month make $594 per hour. Not bad, not bad at all. Perhaps those workers who are fighting for minimum wage increases should take a gander at what some state employees make in impoverished Illinois.

Hartman endorsed Hillary Clinton in the recent election. Maybe Hartman has converted back to the Democratic Party. If “Independents” Terry Cosgrove (a homosexual activist and pro-feticide fanatic) and Patricia Bakalis Yadgir, and “Republican” Hermene Hartman are all, in reality, Democrats, the Illinois Human Rights Commission is in violation of state law that limits the number of commissioners from the same political party to 7.

My math-challenged pea brain thinks there may be up to 9 Democrats serving on the commission that will decide whether to subordinate constitutionally protected religious liberty to homoerotic privilege.

If you haven’t let Govenor Rauner’s office know what you think of this feckless ruling and the corrupt IHRC, please do so now.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact Governor Rauner to express your opposition to his appointments of Democrats Hermene Hartman and homosexual activists Duke Alden and to urge him to investigate the Illinois Human Rights Commission’s efforts to circumvent the law prohibiting political imbalance on the Commission.

Listen to this as a podcast HERE.

take-action-button


The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to represent our Christian values in Springfield or fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left in our culture.

Please consider chipping in $25 or $50 to support our work to stand boldly in the public square.

donate-now-button

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation.

To make a credit card donation over the phone,
please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.




Homosexuals & Corrupt Illinois Human Rights Commission vs. Christian Business Owner

lauries-chinwags_thumbnailA three-person panel of commissioners from the 13-member Illinois Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has decided not to review the egregious decision of IHRC administrative law judge Michael Robinson in the discrimination complaint filed by homosexuals Todd and Mark Wathen against Christian bed and breakfast owner Jim Walder.

In 2011, the now “married” Wathens, inquired about renting the Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast facility in Paxton, Illinois for their civil union ceremony. Because of his religious beliefs about the immorality of homoerotic activity and relationships, Mr. Walder informed Todd Wathen that he would not rent his facilities to Mr. Wathen and his partner for a civil union ceremony.

The Wathens then filed a discrimination complaint with the IHRC—a kangaroo-esque tribunal committed to normalizing homoeroticism through quasi-judicial means.

Last spring, Judge Michael Robinson issued his order which would require Mr. Walder to do the following:

– Pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen as compensation for their emotional distress arising out of the issue.

-Cease and desist from violating the Human Rights Act by denying same-sex couples access to its facilities and services for marriages and civil unions.

-Offer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.

-Pay the Wathens’ attorneys $50,000 in fees and $1,218 in costs.

Mr. Walder’s attorney, Jason Craddock, filed an “exception” which was reviewed by the three commissioners who have decided that Judge Robinson’s decision should stand.

If you’re not angry yet, here’s some information that may raise your hackles.

  • All of the Illinois Human Rights commissioners are appointed bureaucrats—not elected.
  • Only one of the three commissioners who reviewed the Walder case is an attorney.
  • Two of the three commissioners who reviewed this case are homosexual activists: Terry Cosgrove and Duke Alden.
  • Homosexual activist Duke Alden was appointed to the Illinois Human Rights kangaroo court by Governor Bruce Rauner.

Here’s a bit more information on homosexual activists Cosgrove and Alden:

  • Terry Cosgrove was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2014. He is also a passionate and unrelenting foe of the right of preborn babies to be free from extermination. He is president and CEO of pro-feticide Personal PAC and “has lent assistance to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, National Pro-Choice Resource Center, Voters for Choice, Women’s Campaign Fund and the Emergency Abortion Loan Fund.” Cosgrove was also “honored” with the dubious “Freedom of Choice” award by the Chicago Abortion Fund. Cosgrove was appointed by former Governor Pat Quinn after donating $400,000 to help fund Quinn’s victory over Bill Brady.
  • Rauner appointee Democrat Duke Alden is the chairman of Howard Brown Health, an “LGBT” health and social services organization. Alden served on the host committee for a “Presidential Debate Viewing Party” for “Chicago’s LGBT community to cheer on Hillary Clinton.”

The third commissioner on the panel was Patricia Bakalis Yadgir, a Quinn appointee whose husband is Director of Communications and Senior Policy Advisor for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White and whose father is former state comptroller, former state superintendent of education, and former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Michael Bakalis.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. State law prohibits more than seven members of the same political party from serving on the IHRC. Currently there are 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and two “Independents.” And who do you think the two “Independents” are? None other than (no snickering) Terry Cosgrove and Patricia Bakalis Yadgir.

In reality, therefore, there are 8 Democrat and 5 Republican commissioners on the IHRC. And there were no Republicans on the panel reviewing the complaint against the Walders.

So, after learning a bit more about the commissioners who made the decision on the Wathen’s complaint, can anyone read this statement from the Illinois Human Rights Commission with a straight face:

The Commission provides a neutral forum for resolving complaints of discrimination filed under the Illinois Human Rights Act….Our primary responsibility is to make impartial determinations of whether there has been unlawful discrimination, as defined by the Illinois Human Rights Act.

Here are just a few comments about marriage, homoeroticism, and the plight of Christian owners of wedding-related businesses on which the intellectually slothful among us might spend some time ruminating:

  • Marriage has an intrinsic nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not in reality a marriage.
  • The law cannot change the intrinsic nature of marriage. The law can no more transform intrinsically non-marital unions into marriages by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples than it could change cats into dogs by issuing them dog licenses.
  • When homosexuals say they are attracted only to persons of their same sex, they are implicitly acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore, a union composed of two people of the same sex is fundamentally different from a union composed of two people of different sexes.
  • A union composed of two people of the same sex is the antithesis of a marriage. It is an anti-marriage. The ceremony that solemnizes such a union is an anti-wedding. The cake that is served at the anti-wedding reception is an anti-wedding cake. The floral arrangements adorning an anti-wedding reception are anti-wedding floral arrangements.
  • Neither Mr. Walder nor any of the florists, bakers, wedding-venue owners, or photographers who have been sued by petulant homosexuals have refused to serve homosexuals. Rather, they refused to create products or provide services for a type of event for which they have never created products or provided services and one which violates their religious convictions. In fact, many of the Christian business-owners who have been sued have served homosexuals on many occasions—an inconvenient fact for Leftists.
  • The term “sexual orientation” should never have been added to anti-discrimination laws or policies. It is a rhetorical invention of the Left contrived to conflate heterosexuality and homoeroticism. Heterosexuality and homoeroticism are not flipsides of the sexuality coin. In any objective sense all humans are heterosexual in that their anatomy and biology are designed for heterosexual activity. Homoeroticism is a disordering of the sexual impulse.
  • Unlike other legally protected classes that are objectively constituted and carry no behavioral implications (e.g., race, sex, nation of origin), homoeroticism is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual activity. Therefore, homoeroticism is a condition about which humans have every right to make moral judgments.

Mr. Walder has two remaining options: He may file an appeal to have the case reviewed by the entire ideologically imbalanced 13-member IHRC or file an appeal with an appellate court. Let’s hope he and his legal counsel don’t stop now.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact Governor Rauner to express your opposition to his appointment of Democrat and homosexual activist Duke Alden and to urge him to investigate the Illinois Human Rights Commission’s efforts to circumvent the law prohibiting political imbalance on the Commission.

take-action-button

Listen to this as a podcast HERE.


The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to represent our Christian values in Springfield or fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left in our culture.

Please consider chipping in $25 or $50 to support our work to stand boldly in the public square.

donate-now-button

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation.

To make a credit card donation over the phone,
please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.




Mark Elfstrand Interviews Higgins on Important Issues of the Day

Well known Christian radio host Mark Elfstrand, of WYLL’s “Let’s Talk,” often has Laurie Higgins on his program to discuss cultural issues in the news.  His show airs weekdays from 4 to 6 pm on 1160 AM in the greater Chicago area.

Last week Mark interviewed Laurie about a number of important issues, including GLSEN’s “Day of Silence,” which is a political hijacking of the classroom for the advancement of the LGBT agenda.

Mark also asked Laurie about the Left’s push to end sex segregation in bathrooms and locker rooms, and the proposed $80K fine of Christian businessman Jim Walder by the Illinois Human Rights Commission.  As you may remember, Mr. Walder simply declined to allow his Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast to be used for the celebration of a same-sex union. (Read more HERE.)

Mark wraps up their interview by discussing HB 6073, a legislative proposal under consideration in Springfield which would make it easier for men and women who wish they were the opposite sex to obtain falsified birth certificates by merely getting a declaration from any licensed medical or mental health professional stating that the person has undergone clinically appropriate “treatment.”  No surgeries or hormone treatments would be necessary to change their birth certificate.

I recommend that you stream or download the podcast of this program and take 12 minutes to listen to it in the near future, and then please consider sharing this interview with your friends, family and neighbors.  It will bless you and equip you in defending our faith.

Click on the button below to stream the MP3, or right click and “save link as” to download the file:

Download-button-now



Support IFI

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider making a donation to help us stand strong!Donate now button




Christian B&B Owner is Not Backing Down

Written by Laurie Higgins and David E. Smith

Christian Jim Walder, owner of the Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast in Paxton, Illinois, who because of his faith declined to allow his facilities to be used for the celebration of a same-sex union is not backing down even as the state of Illinois stands ready to persecute him and destroy his business.

Mr. Walder has released the following statement in response to Judge Michael R. Robinson‘s tyrannical decision to fine him $80,000 and force him to offer his facility to a homosexual couple to celebrate a type of union God opposes:

Evidently religious freedom does not exist within the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act or the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. 

In our opinion, neither the State of Illinois nor the U. S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage. God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not two women. We may be out of step with an increasingly anti-Christian culture, but we are in compliance with God’s design and that is what ultimately matters. 

To be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission.  Our policy will not be changing. We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s Word and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for biblical truth. “It is better to obey God than men” (Acts 5:29).  

Please take a moment to stand with Mr. Walder by speaking out against this unjust erosion of religious liberty. Tell people in your church, your neighbors, and your family members about this miscarriage of justice. Write a letter to your local newspaper about this proposed discriminatory act against a Christian man of faith. The First Amendment guarantees the right to the “free exercise” of religion, which includes the right to act upon beliefs regarding the morality of activities and behaviors.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an unequivocal and respectful message to Keith Chambers, the executive director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and Gov. Bruce Rauner to express your opposition to Judge Robinson’s decision.

Please keep Mr. Walder, his family, his business, and his attorneys in your prayers. Pray that the members and staff of the Illinois Human Rights Commission recognize the federal civil rights of Jim Walder and choose not to undermine his First Amendment protections.


Follow IFI on Social Media!SM_balloons

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI




UPDATE: Christian B&B Case Not Over

Initial press reports suggested that the case against the Christian owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton, Illinois, Jim Walder, was settled. The Illinois Human Rights Commission has clarified that administrative law judge Michael R. Robinson’s decision that Jim Walder should pay an $80,000 fine and be required to offer his facility to a homosexual couple to celebrate their civil union can be appealed by filing “exceptions.”

Either party to the suit has 30 days to file exceptions. If they file exceptions, the case goes before a panel. If no exceptions are filed, the recommendations made by Robinson will take effect.

Here is what Robinson has ordered:

  • Pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen as compensation for their emotional distress arising out of the issue.
  • Cease and desist from violating the Human Rights Act by denying same-sex couples access to its facilities and services for marriages and civil unions.
  • Offer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.
  • Pay the Wathens’ attorneys $50,000 in fees and $1,218 in costs.

Ubiquitous ACLU attorney John Knight has erroneously stated that  “For the first time, the Human Rights Commission has made clear that owners of businesses serving the public in Illinois cannot pick and choose who [sic] to serve based on their personal religious views.” “Progressives” can’t seem to get it through their dogma-drenched minds that Christians in wedding-related businesses are not deciding whom to serve. They are deciding which kinds of events to serve, facilitate, and profit from. 

Attorney Betty Tsamis, who represents the Wathens, made a similar claim but got dangerously close to inadvertently acknowledging the truth: “It would have been shameful to reverse this history simply because some business owners object to the legal protections afforded same-sex relationships.” Tsamis veered slightly off-message by focusing on “same-sex” (i.e., homerotic) relationships rather than persons. Her slip suggests the truth that it is a type of volitional activity and ceremonies that solemnize and celebrate it that many people of faith, including Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and orthodox Christians, cannot in good conscience serve. 

While the Left continues to add conditions (all sexual in nature and behaviorally constituted) to anti-discrimination policies and laws, they are bit by bit removing religion.

It is imperative that we speak out against this unjust erosion of religious liberty. The First Amendment guarantees the right to the “free exercise” of religion, intrinsic to which is the right to act upon beliefs regarding the morality of activities and behaviors. 

Take Action: Click HERE to send an unequivocal and respectful message to Kevin Chambers, the executive director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and Gov. Bruce Rauner to express your strong opposition to Judge Robinson’s decision.


Follow IFI on Social Media!SM_balloons

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI




Illinois Christian Businessman Fined $80k for His Faith — But There is More

Another Christian business-owner has been persecuted for his faith. Jim Walder, owner of an Illiois bed and breakfast, has been fined $80,000 by the Illinois “Human Rights” junta (also known as the Illinois Human Rights Commission) for refusing to rent his facility to homosexual couple Todd and Mark Wathen for their civil union ceremony.

Even more outrageous, the Illinois Human Rights Commission has ordered that Jim Walder “[o]ffer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.” You read that right. This unelected, quasi-governmental commission has mandated that Jim Walder not only pay a fine for not accepting a request that violated his religious beliefs but also to offer to violate his religious beliefs. Such a mandate clearly violates Mr. Walder’s constitutionally protected religious liberty.

Despite what cultural regressives in their profound ignorance claim, the issue is not about discrimination against persons for some behaviorally neutral trait, like race, sex, or nation of origin, but rather about discriminating among types of activities. And despite what one of the homosexual plaintiffs claim, they were not turned away because of who they are.

Walder chose not to use his property, his business, and his labor in the service of an immoral activity. Facilitating a ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates a union that God abhors would violate Walder’s religious convictions, and compelling him to facilitate such an activity violates his First Amendment protections.

**Click HERE to read an update**

Here is a news report from Reuters:

Illinois inn fined for refusing to host gay civil union ceremony

CHICAGO (Reuters) – An Illinois inn that refused to allow a same-sex couple hold their civil union ceremony on the property was fined more than $80,000 by the Illinois Human Rights Commission on Tuesday.

An administrative law judge with the commission ordered TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast to pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen for emotional distress.

The Wathens had contacted TimberCreek in 2011 as they looked for possible locations for the ceremony.

TimberCreek owner Jim Walder had responded to the Wathens’ inquiry with an email that said “homosexuality is immoral and unnatural,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

TimberCreek, located about 100 miles south of Chicago, must also pay $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and $1,218.35 in costs.

“We are very happy that no other couple will have to experience what we experienced by being turned away and belittled and criticized for who we are,” Todd Wathen said in a statement.

A representative from TimberCreek was not immediately available to comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June 2015.

(Reporting by Mark Weinraub; Editing by Bernadette Baum)




Lawmakers to Vote on Same-Sex “Marriage” in January?

Multiple media sources are cheerfully reporting that supporters of marriage-redefinition may try to pass their same-sex “marriage” bill during the lame duck session of the General Assembly next month (January 3-9).

State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who identifies as homosexual and is the chief sponsor of this anti-family legislation, used the lame duck session in 2010 to ram through a same-sex “civil unions” bill.  It passed by razor-thin margins in part because many proponents of civil unions dishonestly promised lawmakers that the legalization of “civil unions” was all they wanted. 

The ethically-challenged ACLU lobbied heavily for civil unions in 2010, but then in 2012 filed a lawsuit in Cook County on behalf of homosexual activists, complaining that the very civil union law they lobbied to create is unconstitutional.

The liberal activists who pushed for civil unions, including Representative Harris and State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), also promised their colleagues that religious liberty and freedom of conscience would not be affected by the passage of “civil unions.”  We have seen how empty those promises were. 

One month after the act was signed into law, homosexual activists went after the Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Paxton, Illinois.  The owner, Jim Walder, wanted to operate his business for the glory of the Lord.  Not wanting to violate his conscience, Mr. Walder refused to rent his bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple for their civil union ceremony and reception.  (Read more HERE.)

Then in July of 2011, because Catholic Charities would not violate its religious convictions by placing needy children in the homes of homosexual “civil union” partners, the state of Illinois forced Catholic Charities out of adoption and foster care work, thereby affecting the lives of 2,500 innocent children.

The promises of homosexual activists turned out to be utter deceits, as were the religious liberty “guarantees” that were built into the civil union bill, ironically titled “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.” 

Perhaps thinking Illinoisans can be duped again, Representative Harris has named his marriage-redefinition bill the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Act.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and to support a state constitutional amendment by allowing Illinois voters to permanently define this foundational societal institution.  Be assured, your calls and emails are important!  Legislators take very seriously the letters and the numbers of calls they receive — particularly letters that are written by their constituents (as opposed to pre-written form letters.)

We can stop this destructive policy from moving forward, but we must take up the fight again and be willing to make our voices heard.  And this time, we need every conservative in Illinois to make his and her voice heard. We need you to respond to every action alert we send out as the Left moves forward with this and other pernicious legislation.


Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.




Marital Spat: Chicago Tribune Op/Ed Again Assaults Natural Marriage

A week ago, the Chicago Tribune celebrated — again — the passage of the civil union bill as well as Obama’s decision to order the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Barack Obama has divined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and has ordered the Justice Department (DOJ) to cease defending it. President Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court even though the DOJ is specifically charged with the responsibility of defending federal laws.

However did DOMA’s unconstitutionality escape the notice of the 85 senators and 342 representatives who voted for it in 1996? And however did its unconstitutionality escape the notice of the man who signed it into law: President Bill Clinton, attorney and Rhodes Scholar?

The intellectual vacuity of the Tribune’s position is best illustrated in the claim that “the sky didn’t fall” following the passage of the civil union bill. What they mean is that Illinois has seen no cultural cataclysm since the bill was signed into law. The Tribune? wins this sophistical skirmish: I will concede that the bill that was signed into law six weeks ago and doesn’t take effect until June has not resulted in climatic catastrophe.

It has, however, darkened the sky for Jim Walder, a bed and breakfast owner in Paxton, Illinois who is being sued by a homosexual couple for not renting his facility to them for their civil union and reception. (Read more about this HERE.) And it seriously threatens the religious liberty of Christian organizations that seek to live out the tenets of their faith. (Read more about this HERE.)

But most of the cultural damage will not be seen for years to come. Any thinking person understands that cultural change rarely happens instantaneously. For example, Stanley Kurtz has documented the destructive impact same-sex “marriage” has had on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia — changes that did not appear in a period of weeks or even months.

The Tribune editorial board continues its assault on marriage without ever feeling the need to address the fundamental and fundamentally flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming movement, including the effort to radically transform marriage and family, is built. The entire house of cards is built on a specious comparison of race to homosexuality, and yet, I cannot recall reading a single editorial defending with evidence the ways in which race and homosexuality are ontologically analogous or equivalent.

I also can’t recall the Tribune editorial board wrestling intellectually with the fundamental question that Princeton Law Professor Robert George recently debated with homosexual journalist Kenji Yoshino, which is: What is marriage?