No matter how much ink has been spilled on the unconstitutionality of using government power to censor speech, including by scores of “progressives,” homosexual activists just won’t let up.

The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA), yet another organization committed solely to normalizing homosexuality, has filed an absurd complaint against Chick-fil-A with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Their claim is that Chick-fil-A violates “Section 5-102(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits a ‘public accommodation’ from making protected classes ‘unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable.’”

In their press release last Thursday, TCRA made clear their tyrannical and unholy demands on Chick-fil-A — demands that no serious Christian could accommodate. TCRA explained that they and Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno  have been trying since last February to get Chick-fil-A to “examine” its corporate policies. Here’s what TCRA and Moreno want from Chick-fil-A:

…an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits.

Yes, TCRA and Moreno want to coerce an organization that is owned by theologically orthodox Christians to have policy that implicitly and/or explicitly teaches employees that homosexuality is ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, to provide benefits to unions that violate the clear teachings of Scripture, to advertise in a community that seeks to redefine marriage and family, and to subsidize hormone-doping and genital-mutilating surgery for the gender-confused.

The complaint from TCRA exposes a number of troubling issues:

1. The complaint reveals the serious problem with the ambiguous language in the Illinois Human Rights Act, which includes the following:

It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to…[d]irectly or indirectly, as the operator of a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication…which the operator knows is to the effect that…any person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination.

The sentence construction is odd and awkward. I suspect its awkward construction resulted from homosexuality advocates’ intent to use this for exactly the purpose it’s being used now. TCRA is using this section of the Illinois Human Rights Act to prosecute speech outside of the work place that they don’t like.

Dan Cathy’s expression of his beliefs about marriage had nothing whatsoever to do with customer service in Chick-fil-A restaurants, which are the only actions that this section of the Human Rights Act should legitimately address. His statements about marriage said nothing whatsoever about who is not welcome in Chick-fil-A restaurants. For this section of the Human Rights Act to be applicable to the Chick-fil-A situation would require that Dan Cathy knew that his statement of belief about marriage would make homosexual patrons be unwelcome — not feel unwelcome, but actually be unwelcome. There is no evidence that those who identify as homosexual are unwelcome in any Chick-fil-A in the country or that any employee has ever treated any homosexual customer as objectionable or unacceptable.

Quite the contrary. The anonymous couple on whose behalf TCRA is filing the complaint have said that until they learned of Dan Cathy’s beliefs on marriage, Chick-fil-A “was one of their favorite places to eat.” In other words, this couple and the child they are raising were treated well.

Homosexual activists are essentially arguing that any public expression of disapproval of homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and, therefore, should be illegal. They are saying that they don’t feel welcome unless everyone approves of homosexuality — or conceals their disapproval. They are saying, in effect, that only they are permitted to express moral claims about homosexuality in the public square.

The problem is that the government has no right to prohibit speech simply because it hurts someone’s feelings. It’s both unconstitutional and dangerous to prohibit citizens, including business owners, from making moral or political claims about any issue, including sexuality and the nature of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees the right to express beliefs and opinions, especially unpopular opinions.

2. If TCRA’s reasoning were to be applied consistently, it would prohibit anyone who runs a business from ever expressing opinions on what constitutes moral behavior. If Dan Cathy’s expression of his belief that marriage is a sexually complementary union violates some fundamental anti-discrimination principle because it makes those who are in same-sex relationships feel bad, then does the expression of the belief that marriage is a union of only two people violate the same principle because it makes Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints who believe in polygamy feel bad?

Moreover, if Cathy’s expression of the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman makes homosexual couples feel unwelcome, and if their subjective (and erroneous) feelings that they are unwelcome constitutes proof that he violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, then what does it mean if a business owner says that marriage has nothing to do with sexual complementarity? Clearly, when a business owner expresses that idea, it means he thinks Christian, Muslim, and Orthodox Jewish beliefs about marriage are wrong. If Christians, Muslims, and Jews, therefore, feel unwelcome in businesses owned by people who express “progressive” beliefs, are those business owners guilty of engaging in religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by the Illinois Human Rights Act? After all, the religious beliefs of Christians, Muslims, and Jews are as central to their identity as are the sexual feelings and beliefs of homosexuals.

This intellectual and pragmatic sticky wicket points to the critical need to remove this ambiguous language from the Illinois Human Rights Act. No law should include language that could be interpreted in such a way as to make it illegal for a business owner to say publicly that he believes homosexual impulses are disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or the there is no such thing as same-sex marriage; or that Illinois should not legalize same-sex unions; or that homosexuals should not be permitted to adopt, without fear of complaints or lawsuits. We should not have a law that contradicts the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to speak freely on issues even when such speech offends someone.

3. The complaint reveals the problem of establishing a protected class that is constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts. Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.

Homosexuality is in some cases mutable (even “queer” theorists argue that “sexual orientation” is fluid) and is constituted solely by subjective feelings of attraction and volitional sexual acts that are perfectly legitimate to assess morally.

This raises the question that will surely soon emerge on the cultural landscape: Why should homosexuality and “gender identity,” which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, be included as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws but not other conditions similarly constituted? For example, why shouldn’t polyamory be included in anti-discrimination laws?

4. The complaint provides yet another example of how homosexual activists continually conflate disapproval of volitional sexual acts with disrespect or hatred of persons. The complaint states that Chick-fil-A has “made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.” One would assume that the lives of “LGBT” individuals involve more than just their homosexual (or cross-dressing) acts. Expressing the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as Dan Cathy did, says nothing about what he believes regarding the totality of the lives of homosexuals. And judging from press accounts, there is no indication that his treatment of or interactions with homosexuals indicates that he believes their lives in their totality are unacceptable or that they are unwelcome in any Chick-fil-A restaurant. Has Jeff Bezos, founder, chairman, and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage, “made it clear that the lives” of theologically orthodox Christians are unacceptable to him because he thinks their beliefs on marriage and sexuality are wrong?

The Illinois Human Rights Act is a rhetorical and legal mess being exploited by those like The Civil Rights Agenda who have a pernicious obsession: the eradication or silencing of conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality. If the Constitution has to be shredded in the process, so be it.

Stand With Us

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 standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Last Wednesday, also known as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, was a very encouraging day for anyone who values the First Amendment and who believes that government doesn’t create marriage and ought not try to deconstruct it.

Americans turned out in droves to demonstrate their support for free speech, religious liberty, and true marriage. They showed their support by patronizing Chick-fil-A, waiting patiently for hours to demonstrate with their time and their money that First Amendment rights and marriage matter.

For those who have been vacationing in some Internet-free wilderness, Chick-fil-A’s president and COO Dan Cathy has been vilified for stating in an interview with a Christian organization that he believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman and for donating money to organizations that are trying to maintain the legal definition as such.

Pandering Politicians and “Diversity”

The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and Washington D.C. as well as Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno and New York City Council speaker, lesbian Christine Quinn, in effect, told the entire nation that conservatives are unwelcome in their cities. In so doing, they revealed a willingness to abuse power and an embarrassing degree of constitutional ignorance.

Quinn wrote this in a letter to the president of New York University:

NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity….We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families….Let me be clear—I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views. We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anyone and anything that runs counter to that….As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. (emphasis added; irony Quinn’s)

How do progressives demonstrate tolerance and revel in diversity? They ostracize anyone who does not think exactly as they do. Here are some of the men and women who, according to these elected leaders, would be unwelcome in their cities: Jesus Christ; every Old and New Testament writer; virtually every biblical scholar in the history of Christendom until the late 20^th Century; the pagan writers Juvenal and Horace; all faithful Catholics and Southern Baptists; all faithful members of the Eastern Orthodox Church; all faithful members of the Anglican Church of North America; all faithful members of the Presbyterian Church of America, Orthodox Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches; all Orthodox Jews; all Muslims; the 3,700-member Coalition of African-American Pastors; and, of course, Barack Obama (between the years 2004 and mid-2012 when he opposed “same-sex marriage”).

The good news is that outside the irrational, hypocritical, bullying world of homosexual activism, these five received widespread condemnation even by progressive pundits and the ACLU.

The Strange Theology of Alderman Moreno

Cardinal Francis George responded  to Rahm Emanuel’s claim that support for true marriage is inconsistent with Chicago values (which may be true, if Emanuel is using “Chicago” as a presumptuous synecdoche for himself).  Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, have been encouraged by his unequivocal words, a portion of which are quoted here:

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval…. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Alderman Moreno had this to say about Cardinal George and the Bible: 

“It’s unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts,’ said Moreno, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.

“The Bible says many things,” Moreno said. “For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just disingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian.”

Four thoughts: 

• I’m not Catholic, but I assume that cardinals have read and studied the Bible more thoroughly than have altar boys and occasional church attendees. 
• Generally speaking, it is not cardinals and other theologically orthodox religious leaders who pick and choose those parts of Scripture that suit their fancy. It’s theological heterodox religious leaders, atheists, and homosexual activists who cherry-pick and decontextualize Scripture. 
• Clearly, a man who thinks it’s “irresponsible” to suggest that Christians must believe what Christ believes understands virtually nothing about Christ’s Lordship or the nature of God. 
• I wonder if Moreno will catch any flak from progressives for violating the separation of church and state by using his Christian beliefs about “equal rights” to shape public policy? 

The Look of Love

Pandering politicians like mayors Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Vincent Gray have a greater commitment to currying favor with homosexual activists, who have become increasingly brazen in part because of conservative cowardice, than they do to protecting constitutional rights.

The behemoth of homosexual activism has grown by gorging on political and judicial power, academia, the mainstream press, the entertainment industry, and the arts. Now it stands slavering over the church and marriage. It licks its chops while waiting for these last delectable morsels of civilized life to be handed to them on a silver platter by an obsequious public afraid of confrontation and persecution. Yum, yum, eat ‘em up. 

And they’re no fools. They gussy themselves up in Sunday-go-to-meetin’ finery, deceiving America—especially America’s gullible youth—with the language of love and “social justice,” keeping their gimlet eyes affixed on images that appeal and beguile. Homosexual activists keep Americans from the hard intellectual work of critically analyzing their flawed presuppositions, propositions, and analogies:

• They want to keep Americans from thinking deeply about whether marriage is a private institution concerned only with the romantic and sexual feelings of adults.
• They want to keep them from thinking about whether marriage is really an infinitely malleable social construct or whether it has an intrinsic nature.
• They want to keep them from wondering why, if marriage has no intrinsic connection to sexual complementarity or procreative potential, we limit it to two people.
• They want to keep them from asking whether prohibiting polyamorists from marrying the persons they love constitutes hatred, discrimination, and intolerance.
• They want to keep Americans from demanding evidence for the claim that homosexuality is by nature like race.
• And they definitely want to keep them from asking whether children have any inherent rights to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Homosexual activists don’t want Americans to ask whether the desires of couples who are sterile by design supersede the rights of children.

Public Controversies and Good Business Practices

Throughout the Chick-fil-A imbroglio, a number of commentators have said that although Dan Cathy has a right to express his views and donate his money to whatever cause he wants, getting involved in controversial social issues is just bad business practice. It’s curious that I have never heard those same pundits fret about the “bad business practices” of Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage in Washington State; Disney; General Mills; Home Depot; JC Penney; Marriott; Microsoft; Nabisco; Office Depot; Starbucks; or Target, all of which have very publicly taken sides on the controversial issue of homosexuality.

The Firing of CFO Adam Smith

Adam Smith, the CFO and treasurer of a medical device manufacturing company in Tucson, Arizona, and a lecturer at the University of Arizona, visited a Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, recorded his conversation with the young woman who waited on him, and then posted his recording on YouTube. He is now the former CFO and treasurer of the medical supply company, Vante.

Some are arguing that he shouldn’t have been fired and that conservatives are hypocritical for not supporting his right to express his views. That line of thinking seems flawed. Adam Smith’s problematic behavior was not the expression of his political or religious views. The problems were, first, he publicly impugned the character of a young woman whom he did not know, saying to her, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and continue to work here.”

Second, he continued to record her even after she told him that she was uncomfortable with him recording her.

And finally, he posted this recording, presumably without her permission, online. If this remarkably poised and respectful young woman is under 18, Smith’s actions may not have been merely rude and inconsiderate, they may have been illegal.

The lack of respect for the feelings of this young woman and his lack of judgment in posting his video are more than sufficient justification for his firing.

Final words

Some claim that this incident was “really just about the First Amendment.” It wasn’t. It was equally about the truth of marriage. It was equally about whether marriage has an objective status and whether our government should recognize, promote, and regulate it—or whether it should be deconstructed to accommodate the desires of a small group of people with specious arguments, abusive voices, political power, and deep pockets.

Let’s hope Americans will not slip back into inertia, acquiescence, and cowardice. As Michael Medved said, Wednesday was inspiring.

Stand With Us

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 standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Last week, we told you how a great American company, Chick-fil-A, was being smeared and threatened by radical pro-homosexual activists, including Chicago’s very own Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Joe Moreno.   Almost a thousand of you sent emails or faxes to Alderman Moreno demanding that he stop the religious bigotry and intolerance shown to Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family.   Those of us who stand for natural marriage need to be encouraged by Chick-fil-A’s slogan of  “Eat Mor Chikin” — not act like one. 

Despite fierce pressure from the Left, CEO Dan Cathy is planting his feet in the face of criticism and reiterating that their business is as God-centered as it ever was.  Asked about the franchise’s support for family values, Dan responded, “guilty as charged.”  If you’ve been watching the news at all, you’ve witnessed the national debate over Mayor Menino’s threatening response to pro-family comments by the president of Chick-fil-A.  As a result, pro-family leaders from around the country have rallied to the restaurant’s defense, and the defense of free speech and religious liberties. 

This spontaneous movement has called for today, Wednesday, August 1st, to be ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.’  Our whole office had lunch at a local Chick-fil-A yesterday, and we were pleased to see so many of you there.  

Not surprisingly, homosexual activists are threatening to stage a “Kiss-In“ at Chick-fil-A restaurants on Friday, August 3rd.   Is there no shame?   For these intolerant liberals, there is absolutely no room for people like you and me — or our values — in the public square.   We here at IFI will gladly have lunch at Chick-fil-A and we’ll see you there!

An ugly cultural truth has been confirmed through the Chick-fil-A mess. Yes, some glimmers of light momentarily pierced the darkness as we saw most of the country’s liberal columnists and pundits condemn Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, and now Philadelphia Councilman Jim Kenney for their anti-liberty pontifications. 

I say “glimmers” of light because these same pundits also feverishly assured the public that while they defend the First Amendment, they condemn Dan Cathy’s views, lest anyone think they’re ignorant, provincial, un-evolved, un-hip, hateful chuckleheads. 

I say “momentarily” because I have no confidence that a decade from now our liberal pundits and columnists will be such vociferous defenders of speech rights and religious liberty when it comes to homosexuality. We need only look at Canada to see our future. 

Religious discrimination directed at any religion is wrong, offensive, and scary, but what Americans should have learned through recent events is that in America, there’s really only one faith tradition against which our cultural elites pride themselves in discriminating: theologically orthodox Christianity. (Many also rather enjoy mocking orthodox Christians). 

A number of stories have emerged that reveal that Menino and Emanuel are far more generous to and tolerant of those who hold the same marriage views as Dan Cathy but follow religious traditions that aren’t as politically easy to persecute.

Boston radio host Michael Graham explains that “Mayor Menino ‘sold’ $2 million worth of city property to the [Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque] for $175,000, despite their well-documented links to Muslim extremism. The mosque teaches a form of Islam that condemns homosexuals to death.”

Rahm Emanuel proclaimed “‘Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.'” That strikes many as a peculiar comment in light of the fact that until a few months ago the president whom Emanuel served opposed same-sex marriage and said so explicitly during his first presidential campaign.

It’s also peculiar because Emanuel apparently feels no moral queasiness about the Nation of Islam reopening its restaurant Salaam in Chicago even though Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said this about same-sex marriage:

Sin is sin….[Obama’s] the first president that sanctioned what the Scriptures forbid. Now why is it all you politicians take your oath of office on the Bible? If the Book is no good, what the h*ll are you using it for?

Philadelphia Councilman Kenney is a Jimmy-come-lately to the freedom fray and apparently hasn’t noticed that even most “progressives” are troubled by the implications of government efforts to penalize someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.  In his effort to promote tolerance in “the city of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection,” Kenney wrote this to Dan Cathy (you can’t make this stuff up): “So please—take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”

The notion that the Constitution guarantees the right of men to marry men and women to marry women is sufficiently bizarre to cause some serious grave-turning among our Founding Fathers. So too would be the notion that opposing “same-sex marriage” could get you in a financial or legal sticky-wicket. This is not progress. Our collective cultural understanding of church-state relations, marriage, and sexuality is devolving from sense to pernicious non-sense.

Please Christians, get educated and speak up boldly while you’ve got the chance. If not for yourselves, do it for your children and grandchildren.

From today’s Chicago Tribune and Scott Stantis:

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet taken action, please click HERE to let Alderman Joe Moreno know that his actions constitute an intolerant affront to many Illinoisans, threaten religious liberty and speech rights, and demonstrate a profound lack of respect for diversity.  Please be respectful in your comments.

More ACTION:  Pro-family groups across the country are calling for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Wednesday, August 1st.  IFI would like to encourage you to patronize a local restaurant, if you are able. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.

Stand With Us

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 standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

The Chicago Tribune is reporting  that Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno (D-1st Ward) is blocking the construction of a Chick-fil-A in his ward because he disagrees with owner Dan Cathy’s beliefs about marriage. Since Dan Cathy’s beliefs are explicitly religious, Moreno’s effort would seem to violate the Illinois Human Rights Act  which states the following:

                It is the public policy of this State:

(A)   Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age marital status, physical or mental handicap, military status, sexual orientation, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations.

The Tribune further reports that “Mayor Rahm Emanuel backed Moreno’s ideological viewpoint, saying the city does not share the values espoused by Dan Cathy, president of the family-owned Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant chain.” Really? The entire city of Chicago rejects the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman? To whom exactly is King Rahm referring? Does he speak for all of the little people in his kingdom?

Moreno has decided that no one who wishes to do business in his ward can express the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The hubris and ignorance in his words and actions are astonishing. The threat to speech rights and religious liberty, frightening.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to let Alderman Joe Moreno know that his actions constitute an intolerant affront to many Illinoisans, threaten religious liberty and speech rights, and demonstrate a profound lack of respect for diversity.  Please be respectful in your comments.

More ACTION:  Pro-family groups across the country are calling for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Wednesday, August 1st.  IFI would like to encourage you to patronize a local restaurant, if you are able. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.