1

Judge Finds Christians Have a Right to Share Their Faith at Public Street Festival

Mauck & Baker attorneys obtain summary judgment on the unconstitutionality of the City of Chicago’s policy.

CHICAGO – On May 31, 2011, Pastor Frank Teesdale and his attorneys at Mauck & Baker, LLC, received the good news from the United States District Court that Federal Judge William T. Hart had found the City of Chicago’s policy on religious leafleting and street evangelism at a Chicago street festival to be unconstitutional. Pastor Teesdale and nine other members of Garfield Ridge Baptist Church can now freely move about the public streets and share their faith in Jesus with others at the festivals without fear of arrest.

“Pastor Teesdale and his congregation realized that if we do not use and defend our rights, we will lose them.” said Noel Sterett, an attorney with Mauck & Baker. “I applaud the courage and perseverance that it took for them to go toe-to-toe with the City for these last three years.”

On July 12, 2008, Pastor Teesdale along with a group from his church entered the public streets during the St. Symphorosa Family Fest which was open to the public without charge and on permit from the City. Not long after Pastor Teesdale had begun handing out gospel tracts, an armed police officer working security told Teesdale and his group to that they had to leave. Knowing his rights to speak on the public streets, Pastor Teesdale stood his ground and was arrested and charged with “criminal trespass to property,” a charge the officer later admitted was improper.

The criminal case against Pastor Teesdale was dismissed in May 2009 when the City of Chicago failed to prosecute and a civil suit against the City and arresting officers was filed in July 2009. In opposition to the Teesdale’s suit, the City maintained its position that it could enforce its permit scheme to exclude people “who wished to convey a message antithetical to St. Symphorosa or the Catholic Church.” Even after Judge Hart rejected the City’s position in 2010 in an order denying the City’s motion to dismiss, the City refused to withdraw its position or promise to not interfere with further attempts by the plaintiffs to speak at the Fest. Consequently, Judge Hart issued this most recent order citing his former holding that “the City cannot constitutionally prevent plaintiffs from engaging in such speech.”

“We praise God for allowing us to share the good news of Jesus Christ. We also thank Mauck & Baker for standing with us. Without their help, the City of Chicago would not only have silenced us, but also deprived several thousand people of the opportunity to decide for themselves how to respond to this message of hope.” said Pastor Teesdale.

Full Opinion:

http://mauckbaker.com/CB1FDC/assets/files/News/Teesdale%20Opinion%20and%20Order_May%2026,%202011.pdf

CONTACT MAUCK & BAKER at             (312) 726-6454       or www.tcpr.net




Dan Proft Explains How Special Homosexual “Rights” Laws Diminish Religious Freedom

Conservative radio host and a former republican candidate for Illinois governor Dan Proft debated homosexual activist Anthony Martinez of The Civil Rights Agenda about gay “rights” and civil unions last night on FOX Chicago News:

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/18565/2501527?cpt=8&title=new_gay_news&wpid=3139

 




Major Religious Freedom Case to be Argued Monday

Kelly Shackelford, head of the pro-family Free Market Foundation in Texas says a case to be argued next Monday is “the biggest case in the country on religious freedom.” Government officials are arguing that elementary school students have NO First Amendment rights, therefore allowing religious discrimination against them.

This case would immediately impact 41 million students nationwide, and because of the gravity of the case, both Kenneth Starr, judge and former special prosecutor, and Paul Clement, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, have joined the team defending the rights of students.

The case, Morgan et al. v. Plano (Texas) Independent School District, known as the infamous “candy cane” case, is going before all 17 judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a rather rare occurrence. The case started eight years ago when public school officials banned eight-year-old Jonathan Morgan from giving candy canes with Jesus’ name on them to classmates at a holiday party.

School officials also confiscated one little girl’s pencils banning her and others from handing them out after school because they had the word God on them. Finally, the same officials banned an entire class sending cards to the troops overseas from writing the words “Merry Christmas” on them.

The consequences of this case are serious: no religious freedom, no right to respectfully express a different opinion than the government, religious discrimination permitted, and no way for parents to protect their children.

Please pray this weekend and especially on Monday about this case. Pray for the lawyers arguing the case. If you can, make an announcement at church on Sunday about the case. Encourage members of your congregation to pray.

For more information, visit www.FirstAmendmentFreedoms.LibertyInstitute.org.




One Pastor’s Plea to President Obama — A Courageous Lead

In the midst of one of the recent steps further into cultural darkness, a spark of light glimmered Sunday when Steve Farish, pastor of Crossroads Church in Grayslake, Illinois, distributed a brief note to his congregation regarding President Obama’s stunning decision to order the Department of Justice to cease defending in court the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In it he shared the email he sent President Obama, but more important, he urged his congregation to do likewise. It is the hope and fervent prayer of Illinois Family Institute that other faith leaders will demonstrate such courage and wisdom.

Everyone I know who works full-time on cultural issues shares the same anguish and frustration about the church. We know that until Christians awaken from their moral slumber, become willing to be persecuted for their faith, and participate in the cultural debate on all issues relating to homosexuality, suffering will increase.

  • Our religious liberties, speech rights, and parental rights will continue to erode.
  • Individuals will be lost in lives given over to perversion-perversion that will result in eternal separation from a just and holy God.
  • Children will be robbed of their innocence and their inherent right to be raised by their biological parents.
  • And the natural family will continue its tragic decline.

But as I write this, I feel hopeful because of this brief note from a pastor willing to be persecuted for his Lord and Savior and willing to lead his flock:

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

There are times when events signal the moral decline of our society so clearly that I believe God calls Christians to respond. One such time was this past Wednesday when the United States Attorney General announced that the current executive administration has suddenly reversed course and now will argue in court that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. I believe this decision profoundly hurts all Americans, perhaps especially those who practice a homosexual lifestyle who are the very people the administration wrongly believes it is helping. Below is the text of an email I sent on Thursday to the White House, and I urge you to send a similar note to the president in your own words (www.WhiteHouse.gov).

Thanks, and God bless you!

Pastor Steve


Dear President Obama:

My heart was broken yesterday to hear Attorney General Holder’s announcement that your administration has suddenly shifted its position and now believes the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 to be unconstitutional. Mr. President, with all due respect to you personally, the God who created and rules the universe — the God who put you into office (Romans 13:1) — from the beginning gave us human beings our sexuality as a gift to be enjoyed only in the covenant bonds of marriage between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). Our Creator gave us this command as an expression of his infinite wisdom and love for all human beings, and whenever we violate his command for use of our sexuality, we can reap only a harvest of brokenness and pain. The decision of your administration concerning the Defense of Marriage Act will therefore only serve to hurt human beings, both those who practice a homosexual lifestyle and those who do not. I plead with you, for the sake of this nation’s future, to reconsider your decision on the Defense of Marriage Act and reverse it immediately. 

Thank you for your kind consideration of this most urgent, heartfelt, and respectful request.

~Steve Farish
Libertyville, Illinois




Homosexual Activists Go After Illinois Religious Organizations

Homosexual activists emboldened by Illinois’ civil union law are attempting to force Christian agencies that receive state funds to license foster families either to place children with homosexuals or lose state funding, which would jeopardize the placements of thousands of children.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn and the Department of Children and Family Services are investigating these Christian foster care agencies for discrimination because of their religiously based decisions not to place children in the homes of homosexual partners.

If homosexuals were centrally concerned for the welfare of children, they would leave religious agencies to act according to the dictates of their faith traditions. But as usual the ignoble desire of homosexuals to compel the entirety of society to affirm their attractions, volitional acts, and moral and political beliefs takes precedence over all else. It supersedes the rights of parents, speech rights, religious liberty, and even the welfare of children. It’s astonishing to witness such monumental narcissism and selfishness in the service of normalizing perversion. Of course, the real motivations are speciously papered over with “civil rights” rhetoric to deceive the gullible.

They justify this effort by claiming that the refusal to place children in homes of homosexuals violates laws that prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This points to the disastrous cultural consequences that will continue to accrue because homosexual activists and their ideological allies were allowed to add the term “sexual orientation” to anti-discrimination laws and policies. Of course, they were aided by the ignorance, cowardice, and silence of conservatives who failed to fight vigorously against such a feckless inclusion.

Take ACTION: Contact Gov. Quinn and Attorney General Madigan to urge them not to discriminate against Christian organizations.

Individuals and organizations have a moral right to discriminate among volitional behaviors. That is to say, they have an inalienable right to make judgments about what constitutes moral behavior. Homosexuality is not equivalent to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is not equivalent to racism. Homosexuality is a condition centrally defined by subjective feelings and volitional acts, and as such, should never be included in policy or law with conditions that are objective and non-behavioral.

What are the essential criteria for evaluating the suitability of families seeking to foster or adopt children? They must have the financial means to support them and be able to provide a clean, nurturing environment. If it is a couple, they must demonstrate that they have a stable, committed relationship. But is that all? If so, then we as a society should cheerfully turn over suffering children to the care of loving, committed, stable incestuous couples who are able to provide a safe, nurturing environment.

And we should cheerfully and comfortably relinquish suffering children to the care of loving, stable, committed polyamorous families who are able to provide a safe, nurturing, environment.

And what about lesbian sisters who demonstrate similar relational qualities and can provide the same material security that a heterosexual married couple demonstrates and provides?

Love, commitment, stability, safety, and support are, indeed, essential factors when evaluating the appropriateness of a family seeking to foster or adopt, but so too is the moral nature of the relationship of the family. Those who recoil at the idea of incestuous couples or polyamorous partners fostering or adopting do so out of the same kind of moral evaluation of the nature of incest and polyamory as others do out of a moral evaluation of homosexuality. Those who would prohibit loving, stable incestuous couples or polyamorous partners from fostering or adopting do so for the same kind of reason that those who would prohibit loving homosexual couples from fostering or adopting do: a belief that these kinds of relationships are morally flawed.

Some argue that the belief that homosexual conduct is morally flawed is a prejudice and cannot be imposed on all of society. But then one could reasonably argue that the belief that adult consensual incest and polyamory are immoral is an ignorant, antiquated, provincial, bigoted, hateful prejudice that ought not to be imposed on all of society.

One could also make an effective case that gender complementarity occupies such a central place in both marriage and parenting that incestuous and polyamorous partnerships are in some ways more defensible than homosexual couplings.

Moreover, incestuous couples could make the case that their desire to adopt reveals their sense of responsibility in that procreation could result in serious birth defects. Shouldn’t loving incestuous couples be allowed to have children? Is it fair to allow society’s prejudice to prevent them from this basic right?

And what about all the hard to place children waiting for loving homes? Doesn’t opposition to adoption or fostering by incestuous or polyamorous partners (to borrow the fatuous words from Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman), “mainly serve to harm children in dire need of stable, loving families”?

The Tribune points out that there are 57 other private agencies with “non-restictive” policies to which homosexual couples can apply for fostering licenses, but according to ACLU attorney Benjamin Wolf, “‘We don’t know for sure if a loving lesbian or gay family turned away from a discriminatory agency is necessarily going to go to another agency because of the disruption and harm caused to them.'” Perhaps those homosexual couples who are that emotionally fragile are not constitutionally suited for the arduous task of fostering.

Wolf also said that “limiting the pool of prospective foster care parents because certain religious traditions believe same-sex relationships are sinful is irresponsible when children are in need.” Homosexuals constitute between 2-4 percent of the population; the number of those who are in stable relationships is smaller; and the number of homosexuals in stable relationships who want to foster is smaller still. By allowing a few Christian agencies to prohibit homosexuals from fostering–homosexuals who may foster through other agencies–will result in a negligible impact on the pool of foster care parents.

Compare that to the impact on the pool of prospective foster care parents that will result when all theologically orthodox Christian agencies are forced to cease operations. Who’s really being “irresponsible”?

If we measure harm only in concrete, measurable ways — dirty house, lack of food, untended infections, emotional detachment — then we ill-serve the children we purport to care so deeply about. When organizations make decisions regarding the placement of children in families, it is not only appropriate but critical that they take into account the moral nature of the relationships of the potential caretakers.


Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.




Manhattan Declaration App Pulled by Apple

Last week Apple removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. This was apparently done in response to small, but vocal group of people who complained that the declaration amounts to hate speech for its stance against homosexual so-called “marriage.”

An article by the Christian Post defines the Manhattan Declaration well:

The Manhattan Declaration was unveiled last November, outlining principles that uphold the sanctity of life, the historic understanding of marriage, and religious liberty.

It was drafted by Dr. Timothy George of Samford University, evangelical leader Chuck Colson, and Dr. Robert George of Princeton University who were concerned about growing efforts to marginalize the Christian voice in the public square. They drafted the document to affirm fundamental truths and to encourage Christians to be uncompromising in their faith.

The document has been endorsed by prominent evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic leaders and so far nearly half a million signatures have been added to it.

This action by Apple marks another instance, along with the SPLC’s labeling of IFI, American Family Association and the Family Research Council as a “hate groups,” where advocacy on traditional Judeo-Christian family-value issues has led to the “hate” label being applied.

We are fast approaching the point where simple opposition to homosexual “marriage” will be considered hate speech, silencing not only politicians and citizens, but pastors and churches as well.

Supporters are pushing to have the Manhattan Declaration application restored to the iTunes Store. Follow the Manhattan Declaration on twitter via@ManhattanDec for all the latest on this story.




Congress Returns to Work & ENDA Is on the Agenda

Homosexual activists are again pushing radical legislation known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — H.R. 2981 & S. 1584. It has already been introduced in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and is currently in committee. President Barack Obama is on record supporting ENDA.

Take ACTION: Please contact your Congressman and ask him/her to vote NO on ENDA. You can also call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators at (202) 225-3121 and provide your zip code to be connected to your House member’s office.

Co-sponsors from Illinois are U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D), Roland Burris (D) and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th).

Background
The Illinois Family Institute opposes ENDA, in part because it will elevate self-identified homosexual and gender confused indivuals to protected class status in the workplace. If passed, this will force religious employers to hire and promote homosexual employees even if they find that lifestyle to be morally objectionable. Other federally protected classes are determined by the following criteria:

1) an obvious immutable (not capable of change) characteristic; 
2) a history of discrimination evidenced by economic disenfranchisement; and 
3) political powerlessness.

“Sexual orientation,” “transgenderism” and “gender identity” fail to meet any of the above criteria.

The underlying purpose of ENDA, contrary to its disingenuous title, is to discriminate against anyone opposing homosexuality and transgenderism in the workplace. It is another effort to normalize homosexuality in the culture. ENDA will establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes in the workplace, equivalent to unchangeable characteristics of race and gender and constitutionally protected religious beliefs. 

Under ENDA, employers will be forced to make decisions that run contrary to their religious beliefs — a violation of their First Amendment rights. Employees will be forced to remain silent regarding their views on homosexuality in order to avoid “hostile work environment” claims. Many real-life examples attest to the negative impact ENDA-type policies have in the workplace.

ENDA, at the very least, is a serious threat to the religious liberty of Christians in the workplace.




“Hate Crimes” Bill Moves to U.S. Senate

On April 29th, the U.S. House of Representatives approved and passed H.R. 1913 by a 249-175 vote. The “Hate Crimes” bill, if signed into law, would allow courts to prosecute any crime “motivated by prejudice” against protected characteristics, which include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Take ACTION: 1.) Download this half-sheet flyer and distribute it to everyone you know in Illinois, including your church. 2.) Contact U.S. Senators, Dick Durbin and Roland Burris.

Background
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has defined the broad term of “sexual orientation” to include bestiality, pedophilia *, incest, and “gender identity” disorder among 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias.’ The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) is considered the dictionary of mental disorders.

According to a WorldNetDaily article, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), a “hate crimes” supporter, agreed, saying:

“This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘Philias’ and fetishes and ‘ism’s’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…”

Note: While still in the House, Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced an amendment that would have eliminated pedophiles from special protection in the bill, but Democrats took it out of the final version. We suspect it was purposely left in the bill so that during the Senate debate the proponents would remove it to appear as though they compromised.

Clearly our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, are at risk, not to mention legitimizing and safeguarding over 2 dozen mental/sexual disorders.

H.R. 1913 is an insidious piece of legislation that is aimed at protecting immoral deviant behaviors while inhibiting moral verbal opposition with the threat of prosecution, as in the case of the Philadelphia 11. In 2004, a group of Christians singing and holding signs about freedom from homosexuality at a “gay pride” event in Philadelphia were arrested and charged with hate crimes, even though no crime was committed.

The bill is not about stopping crime.

Other Christians, including pastors, in Sweden, England and Canada have already been prosecuted under similar laws simply for expressing disapproval of homosexuality. In some jurisdictions “hate crimes” have been defined as hate speech, intimidation, and even verbal assault.

Senator Durbin needs to hear from thousands. He is a co-sponsor. If he is going to support this bill, he still needs to hear that many of the people he represents are opposed. In fact, both our U.S. Senators need to hear from us about this bill: