U.S. Supreme Court Recap for First Amendment Cases

It has been an eventful term for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has provided many closely decided cases and ended with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. For those interested in free speech and religious liberty, there have been plenty of decisions to keep track of and digest. Here is what you need to know.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The story is well-known. Jack Phillips, a Christian cake shop owner from Colorado, refused to create a cake for the same-sex “wedding” of two men. They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held that Mr. Phillips violated the state’s public accommodation laws. Much of the litigation centered around whether creating a wedding cake fell under the free expression protections of the First Amendment, but the Court punted on this argument, leaving it for a future case. Instead, the Court ruled for Mr. Phillips on two separate grounds.

First, the Commission did not employ religiously neutral standards when deciding Mr. Phillips case, and instead showed unwarranted hostility towards his Christian faith. One official on the Commission even referred to Mr. Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.”

Second, the Court found that the Commission had used different standards for different bakery owners. An individual named Bill Jack (no relation to Jack Phillips) went to several bakeries asking them to create a cake with a message critical of homosexuality derived from the Bible and was—unsurprisingly—refused service. When complaints were filed, the Commission found that bakeries can refuse to make a cake with a message they deem to be derogatory.

The popular narrative is that this case was decided on narrow grounds and sets little precedent for future cases. However, Masterpiece has already proven to be more influential than that narrative suggests. Anti-religious animus by government officials is common in religious liberty cases, and there’s no better example than Arlene’s Flowers.

Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington

Similar to Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist, refused to offer her services for a same-sex wedding. However, in this case, when she refused to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex couple, it was not the couple who took action. Rather, the state’s attorney general, on his own initiative, filed a complaint against Ms. Stutzman, showing unusual hostility towards her religious beliefs. This led to the Washington Supreme Court holding that Ms. Stutzman engaged in unlawful discrimination. However, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded it back to the state supreme court to consider the decision in light of Masterpiece.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

This case had less headline appeal than Masterpiece but will likely end up being the more influential in First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court found that California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which forced pro-life pregnancy centers to post disclosures about the state’s abortion services, to be a violation of the pregnancy centers’ free speech rights. The decision was important on several fronts. Most notably, the Court refused to create a lesser standard of First Amendment protection for “professional speech.” The argument was that the state should be given greater power to prevent and compel the speech of professionals (like doctors, lawyers, and mental health counselors) than the usual First Amendment protections would allow. But Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, criticized such “professional speech” doctrine as being a tool to suppress unpopular ideas or information. The decision may open possible litigation on the issue of so-called reparative therapy bans, which ban professional counselors from talking with minors about their unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy came down particularly hard on California for its intolerance of the pro-life viewpoint:

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come.

Trump v. Hawaii

This case stems from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s promise of a “Muslim ban” during the 2016 presidential campaign. Initially, President Trump signed an order that banned entry in the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries regardless of visa status. However, after getting blocked by the lower courts because of its disproportionate effect on Muslims and because of several anti-Muslim statements from the Trump administration, the president issued a moderated version of the order. This time, the order did not outright ban travel from the seven countries but it did add extra scrutiny before people were allowed to enter the U.S. The final order was also backed by evidence that the nations with restricted access posed legitimate national security risks and were not just chosen based on anti-Muslim animus.

Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that although five of the seven countries with restricted access were predominantly Muslim, the countries made up only 8% of the world’s Muslim population and were previously designated as posing national security risks. The decision continues the longstanding judicial deference to the Executive Branch on decisions affecting national security. The High Court also renounced the infamous Korematsu v. United States decision, which allowed the executive branch to establish internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II.

Janus v. AFSCME

This case is not just of interest for its First Amendment jurisprudence but also its close connection to Illinois politics. Illinois was one of the 22 states that allowed unions to charge nonmembers fees for the costs of collective bargaining with employers. Mark Janus, a government social worker from Springfield, filed suit against Illinois arguing that the government requiring him to pay a private organization like a union violated his First Amendment right to free speech and association. By subsidizing the union’s administrative costs, Janus argued that he was being forced by the government to support the union’s political activism. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law “violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern” like tax increases or collective bargaining rights. One important distinction is that this ruling only applies to public sector unions, not to any in the private sector.

Rowan County v. Lund

One notable case that did not get the U.S. Supreme Court review comes from Rowan County, North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal barred the opening prayer at county board meetings. The prayer was led by the elected commissioners, who took turns leading at each meeting. Three residents were offended by the prayers and sued the county. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the prayer policy as violating the Establishment Clause despite clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court allowing public prayers in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Unfortunately, the High Court denied cert (i.e., declined to review the lower court decision) on the county’s appeal, and the Fourth Circuit’s decision stands.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

SCOTUS Allows Lower Court to Ban prayer from Public Square

Written by Daniel Horowitz

In case you thought that the potential to flip Justice Kennedy’s seat alone will bring us back to the constitutional promised land, think again. So long as the lower courts are not restrained, we will never return to the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

There is nothing more radical than a lower court granting standing to random plaintiffs to sue against non-coerced public prayer in county government meetings, prayers that have been going on since our founding. Yet a district judge in 2015 and the en banc decision of the radical Fourth Circuit in 2017 barred Rowan County, North Carolina, from opening council sessions with a prayer, similar to what our federal Congress does every day. [Last week], the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to the appeal from Rowan County, despite three years of being under a tyranny that the judges know is unconstitutional.

We shouldn’t even need to get into court precedent to understand our heritage and the true meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But just four years ago, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that as long as the prayer “comports with our tradition and does not coerce participation by nonadherents,” there is no room for judicial intervention. “To hold that invocations must be non-sectarian would force the legislatures sponsoring prayers and the courts deciding these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,” Kennedy wrote in the 2014 case.

The Fourth Circuit rejected precedent because this prayer, in the court’s estimation, was tantamount to coercion because it makes non-religious attendees feel like “outsiders” and “the overall atmosphere was coercive, requiring them to participate so they ‘would not stand out.’” (More on that case and how contrary it is to our founding here.)

For the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the appeal is egregious, especially given that the Sixth Circuit recently ruled the other way, triggering a circuit split. Justice Thomas, as has become his tradition recently, dissented from the decision to deny cert. Thomas noted, “The Fourth Circuit’s decision is both unfaithful to our precedents and ahistorical” and observed, “For as long as this country has had legislative prayer, legislators have led it.” Gorsuch joined the dissent.

There are a number of important observations to be made here in light of the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, calling into question our ability to change the direction of the judiciary absent broader reforms:

Aside from the contorted construction of the First Amendment inherent in this ruling, the courts are continuing to grant standing to random plaintiffs (as straw men for the ACLU) who have no justiciable injury-in-fact other than that their sensibilities are offended. The notion that you can even take such a policy to court is absurd and has grown the power of the courts to that of a legislature rather than an individualized adjudicative body. So long as the Left can lodge hundreds of frivolous lawsuits on important abstract policies every day and have the most liberal districts and circuits uphold them, the shift on the U.S. Supreme Court will not bring much relief. The ACLU and its offshoot organizations essentially have unlimited power so long as the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t change its policies and more aggressively police the lower courts.

The fact that Roberts knows there will be a more conservative fifth justice added to this wing of the court in the fall and still refused to take up the case is all the more disturbing and demonstrates that we cannot rely on him to overturn these insane lower court rulings expeditiously.

There is no such thing as a conservative win at the U.S. Supreme Court. Lower court justices will always find hairs to split in any case that is not 100 percent identical and completely ignore precedent, something conservative lower court judges will never do in defiance of liberal U.S. Supreme Court opinions. This is why just hours after the high court affirmed the president’s full power to place conditions on entry, a California judge said that the president must find every single family entering illegally and unite them within 30 days. In another ludicrous ruling on immigration, a New York federal judge said yesterday that the Trump administration cannot promulgate a rule requiring the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to personally sign off on the release of illegal immigrant child detainees. Yes, we have no sovereignty, and the president has no powers to even establish some oversight before swamping the country with foreign nationals, who flood into our schools and communities and who often join MS-13. Chief Justice Roberts said that there are no limits to the president’s power to regulate entry into the country, but that will not stop lower courts from granting standing to illegal aliens to sue against every minute piece of policy.

This is all to say that unless the lower courts are dealt with, we will continue to suffer increasingly at the hands of the lower courts even as the membership on the U.S. Supreme Court officially gets better. The bottom line is: We don’t have five Clarence Thomases and will not get them any time soon.

It is incumbent upon conservatives in Congress to create a movement to reorient the power of the lower courts. Rather than the default being that any random court can shut down our heritage and system of governance for years until the U.S. Supreme Court grants relief – if ever – the injunction should automatically be placed on hold until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case and affirms the ruling. Granting a congressional-created court supremacy power over the other branches of government is a case of the inmates running the asylum. If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to act supreme to its own underlings, then why should we respect its supposed “supremacism” over the rest of us?

This article was originally published at ConservativeReview.com

Might NIFLA Help Overturn Bans on Same-Sex Attraction Counseling

So much good news from the U.S. Supreme Court this week, including the announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement and the 5-4 decision in the NIFLA v. Becerra case, which asserts that the speech of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers is, indeed, protected speech.

Justice Kennedy surprised the nation by announcing his retirement at the end of July, giving President Donald Trump another opportunity to continue to restore respect for constitutional principles and historical American values. Perhaps we will see that proverbial long arc of justice bending more often toward justice.

Justice Kennedy surprised again, this time in NIFLA v. Becerra. Fascistic California lawmakers eager to impose their beliefs by any unethical means at their disposal passed “The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act” (FACT Act) which requires the following:

Clinics that are licensed must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Its stated purpose is to make sure that state residents know their rights and what health care services are available to them. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services.

Several crisis pregnancy centers sued, claiming that the law abridged their First Amendment speech protections. A district court voted against them, they appealed the decision, and then the nightmarish 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals voted against them as well. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in a 5-4 decision with Kennedy joining the majority, the Court decided in favor of the crisis pregnancy centers.

In his concurrence in NIFLA v. Becerra, Kennedy ridiculed and scolded the California legislature:

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of ‘forward thinking.’ But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to ‘be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.’ It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

This decision means, among other things, that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers cannot be forced to communicate information that violates their beliefs.

Kennedy used this teachable moment to educate lawmakers on the constitutional limits on their pernicious efforts to abuse the law to advance their ideological views. It’s a lesson children should be taught repeatedly in government schools but aren’t.

Buried within the NIFLA decision is something even more remarkable. According to Curtis Schube, Legal Counsel for the Pennsylvania Family Policy Institute, “NIFLA also overturned speech restrictions on therapists who assist people with unwanted same sex attraction.” Schube continues:

Laws which ban sexual orientation change efforts (“SOCE” for short) have increasingly entered the national conversation, most recently in California. Before California’s recent attempts to ban all forms of SOCE at any age, California already had such a law in place for minors. The law considered it “unprofessional conduct” to “seek to change sexual orientation” for a minor. Any counselor who violated the law faced professional discipline.

California’s more recent SOCE laws take an even more extreme position. These laws ban all therapy that aims to change, or even reduce, sexual attraction to the same sex. Therefore, a patient who wants SOCE therapy cannot receive that service without risk to the professional counselor.

In Pickup v. Brown, same sex attracted minors and their parents, as well as counselors who wished to provide their services, claimed that this law violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and free expression. The Ninth Circuit, in 2013, determined that counseling is not speech, but rather professional “conduct.” The “First Amendment does not prevent a state from regulating treatment,” the Ninth Circuit concluded.

The Third Circuit upheld a similar law in New Jersey using the same logic in the 2014 case, King v. Governors of New Jersey. In relying partly upon Pickup, the Third Circuit concluded that counseling is speech (rather than conduct) but classifies that speech as professional speech. The Third Circuit states that a “professional’s services stems largely from her ability to apply… specialized knowledge to a client’s individual circumstances… Thus, we conclude that a licensed professional does not enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment.”

In the NIFLA case, the Ninth Circuit had justified the requirement for pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion as “professional speech,” just like the Ninth and Third Circuits had done for SOCE laws. The Supreme Court opinion overturning the Ninth Circuit’s NIFLA opinion, specifically identified Pickup and King as examples of “professional speech” protected by the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas… stated: “Some Courts of Appeals have recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech that is subject to different rules.” However, “speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’”

This is a paradigm shift in the existing precedents for SOCE bans.

Thomas seized the opportunity to provide protections to many other professions as well. “Professionals might have a host of good-faith disagreements, both with each other and with the government, on many topics in their respective fields.” He identifies doctors and nurses who disagree on the prevailing opinions on assisted suicide or medical marijuana as examples of good faith disagreements. So too are lawyers and marriage counselors who disagree on prenuptial agreements and divorces, and bankers and accountants who disagree on how to commit money to savings or tax reform. One would have to conclude that Justice Thomas’ intent is to protect all professionals from being regulated on matters of good faith disagreement.

There is no settled judgment within the mental health community regarding the efficacy and value of counseling for minors or adults who experience unwanted same-sex attraction. There is no settled judgment about the cause or causes of such attraction. Even the liberal American Psychological Association acknowledges that causation is unknown and is likely—in its view—a result of both nature and nurture. There is, however, fairly broad consensus within academia—including among homosexual scholars that “sexual orientation” is fluid. Kudos to Justice Thomas for providing a constitutional pathway to overturning bans that restrict the First Amendment speech rights of mental health professionals.

And kudos to Justice Anthony Kennedy for his week of surprises.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Might-NIFLA-Help-Overturn-Bans-on-Same-Sex-Attraction-Counseling.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Troubling SCOTUS Decision on Cake-Baker

In a 7-2 decision the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips who was sued by a homosexual couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, for declining to bake a wedding cake for their pseudo-wedding. While the decision is, indeed, a victory, a careful reading should dampen the celebration.

Phillips was appealing a decision reached by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission—a decision suffused with unmitigated religious hostility condemned by Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority:

Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust…. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

It was refreshing to hear Justice Kennedy express proper condemnation of religious hostility and the anti-constitutional view that religious beliefs are prohibited from the public square, but what followed from Kennedy was troubling:

When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations….

Petitioners conceded… that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law….

Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.

Constitutional lawyer and member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Illinois, Joseph A. Morris, warns that Kennedy’s narrowing of the argument to a “question of procedure,” offers little judicial “light to free speech or free exercise jurisprudence”:

Justice Kennedy pretty much telegraphs that if the Commission had only been more circumspect in its language, and less obviously insistent on expressing disdain for people whose religious views do not accept the ‘‘dignity” of homosexual conduct or the “sanctity” of same-sex marriages, its decision would have been sustained instead of reversed…. [I]t is a convenient roadmap for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (and other would-be thought police) to have their way the next time. Commissioners will just have to restrain their own self-expression a bit while they go about their business of suppressing the wrong, and compelling the correct, expression of others.

It’s troubling enough that Kennedy believes the government has the authority to prohibit acts because some individuals may perceive such acts as diminishing their sense of “dignity and worth,” but it’s worse still that Kennedy claims to know what those acts are and are not.

The great and powerful Kennedy proclaims that the refusal of church leaders to officiate at same-sex faux-weddings is hunky dory because he knows that such a refusal would leave homosexuals’ sense of dignity and worth intact. But what if homosexuals claim otherwise?

Evidently, Kennedy also knows that if lay Christians seek to live their lives—including their professional lives—in accordance with their religious convictions, the subjective, internal psychological health of homosexuals will be damaged. If the refusal of Christians to supply goods or services to homosexuals for their “weddings” damages their psyches sufficiently to warrant forcing Christians to contravene their own religious beliefs, what other acts would Kennedy mandate or prohibit in the service of homosexual self-esteem?

Many—this writer included—believe that no theologically orthodox Christian should be required to provide goods or services for an event that violates their religious beliefs. Whether they are engaged in creative arts or own companies that provide linens and chairs, Christians should be allowed to decline to provide goods or services for an event that the God they serve detests.

The Court compared the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision in Phillips’ case to the commission’s decision in the case of Mr. William Jack who had visited three bakeries to request cakes with religious messages about homosexuality:

He requested two cakes made to resemble an open Bible. He also requested that each cake be decorated with Biblical verses. [He] requested that one of the cakes include an image of two groomsmen, holding hands, with a red ‘X’ over the image. On one cake, he requested [on] one side[,] . . . ‘God hates sin. Psalm 45:7’ and on the opposite side of the cake ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22.’ On the second cake, [the one] with the image of the two groomsmen covered by a red ‘X’ [Jack] requested [these words]: ‘God loves sinners’ and on the other side ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.’

All three bakeries refused to make such cakes for Mr. Jack, so he sued and lost. Kennedy—who has a habit of contradicting himself—argued the following regarding the difference in the decision in favor of the three bakeries by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission as compared to its decision against baker Jack Phillips:

A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness…. [I]t is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive…. The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs.

But don’t Kennedy’s references to “stigma,” “dignity,” and “worth” in his earlier advocacy of constraining “purveyors of goods and service” from refusing to serve homosexual “weddings” elevate one view of what is offensive over another? When Kennedy suggests that a refusal to serve a same-sex “wedding” is a stigmatizing act that diminishes the “dignity” and “worth” of homosexuals, isn’t he stigmatizing the theological beliefs that impel refusals?

In their dissent, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor argue that because the three bakeries that refused to bake cakes with biblical messages condemning same-sex marriage had previously made cakes with Christian symbols, they couldn’t be accused of discriminating based on religion. As further evidence that there was no religious discrimination at play in the three bakeries’ refusal, Ginsburg and Sotomayor argue that they “would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion.”

The fact that the three bakeries were willing to bake cakes with religious symbols proves nothing about whether they were motivated to refuse Mr. Jack’s request by religious hostility. The use of Christian symbols has no necessary connection to religious devotion. Sometimes the use of religious imagery is a sign of religious intolerance, bigotry, mockery, and hostility. The recent Met Gala whose theme was religious imagery saw irreligious Hollywood starlets awash in religious imagery. Further, one can approve of some religious beliefs while detesting others.

The customer, Mr. Jack, was religious, he was motivated by his faith, and his requested message was distinctly religious. The refusal of the three bakeries to sell a cake with a religious message to a religious person motivated by his religion may, indeed, constitute religious discrimination.

The fact too that non-religious people may hold a view that Mr. Jack holds and which the three bakeries deemed “demeaning” does not make his view non-religious—or objectively demeaning.

Jack Phillips had on many occasions sold baked goods to homosexuals, so based on Ginsburg and Sotomayor’s reasoning, how could he be accused of discriminating based on “sexual orientation”? Well, here’s how they attempt to undermine the hard evidence that Phillips did not discriminate based on sexual orientation: They argue that the fact that the three bakeries would sell all their products to Christians was relevant because it shows their motivation for refusing Mr. Jack’s cake message was not religious bigotry but, rather, the “demeaning message.” In contrast, the fact that Mr. Phillips would sell almost all products to homosexuals was not relevant because the one product he wouldn’t sell (i.e., wedding cakes) proved he was motivated “solely by the identity of the customer requesting it.”

Whoa, Nelly.

What constitutes a “demeaning” act or message is subjective. Many people of faith would argue that a same-sex faux-marriage is itself demeaning to the celebrants and that participating in, facilitating, or serving such an event is demeaning. If same-sex faux-marriage is, in reality, abhorrent to God, saying so cannot be demeaning, though hearing that claim may be unpleasant.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor assert that the refusals of three bakeries to make cakes with biblical messages were not religiously discriminatory in that it was the offending message to which they objected—not the religious identity of the customer. But calling a biblical message “offensive” or “demeaning” is ipso facto evidence of religious discrimination. It’s not one’s religious “identity” per se that the First Amendment protects but one’s religious free exercise which for Christians is a holistic, comprehensive endeavor that encompasses, among other things, their work and their publicly expressed messages.

As an aside, isn’t calling Mr. Jack’s biblical views on marriage “demeaning” tantamount to calling Mr. Phillips’ views on marriage “despicable” as did one of Colorado’s Civil Rights commissioners whom Kennedy chastised?

Ginsburg and Sotomayor strain futilely to establish a moral distinction between what the three bakeries refused to do and what Mr. Phillips refused to do:

When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor make clear that Craig and Mullins were asking Mr. Phillips to supply a product for a particular event—a celebration of their union—which is a union that God detests. Phillips’ refusal was based on the type of event he was asked to serve—not the sexual identity of the customer.

Again, it was not the “identities” (i.e., sexual predilections) of the homosexuals that formed the basis of Phillips’ refusal. He would have refused to bake a wedding cake for a celebration of a homosexual faux-wedding regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer requesting it. If the heterosexual parents of a homosexual couple were the customers seeking to purchase a cake for their sons’ homosexual “wedding,” Phillips would have refused. He wasn’t refusing to serve homosexuals. He was refusing to use his business to serve a type of event that violates fundamental tenets of Christianity.

All cakes are not created identical. Just because all cakes are made with flour, butter, and sugar does not mean all cakes are the same kind of cakes. What makes a cake a wedding cake are not its ingredients or its design. What makes a cake a wedding cake (or birthday, anniversary, or Independence Day cake) is the type of event for which it is made.

For people of faith, a wedding is something. It has a nature that the law cannot change. A same-sex union may now be recognized in law as a “marriage,” but for theologically orthodox Christians, it is not and never can be a marriage, and the ceremony solemnizing it can never be a wedding. A U.S. Supreme Court decision can no more turn an intrinsically non-marital union into a marriage than it could turn a whole person into 3/5 a person. Craig and Mullins asked Jack Phillips to supply a product for a type of event for which he has never supplied a product: an anti-wedding.

Mr. Morris brings to the foreground yet another important question ignored in this case and rarely discussed in the public square of whether public accommodation laws violate the constitutional principle regarding freedom of association (or assembly):

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which supplied the basis for the same-sex couple’s complaint and the Colorado Commission’s decision, is a rather extensive model of the genre, prohibiting the denial of a “public accommodation” to any individual or group on the basis of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

In a society characterized by freedom of association one would expect that people would be free to associate with, including do business with, anyone they chose, for any reason: Or not to do so, also for any reason.

We long ago agreed to abridge the freedom of association in order to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and previous condition of servitude, in order to eliminate “the badges and incidents of slavery.” How long freedom of association must be abridged to achieve that end is an open question, clearly one of prudence confided to our national and State legislatures.

Over the years and decades, however, the discussion of when that end has been accomplished, and how to tell that it has been accomplished, has been abandoned, and has given way, instead, to an ever-expanding new list of categories in the service of which the freedom of association is to be further abridged.

In a healthy society one would think that the pressure would be toward finding a path to end the special restrictions needed to redress a grave and pervasive legal wrong (slavery) with persistent legal consequences (state-compelled segregation) and, in due course, restore the full and unfettered freedom of association—a condition in which government does not care and does not monitor with whom one associates and why, and does not compel private association for any reason.

Instead, our society now features incessant competitions by aggrieved groups to achieve highly-desired designations as “victim classes” to bring them within an ever-expanding list of categories of people with whom private association may be compelled and, thus, the freedom of association be ever further abridged.

As I say, nary a mention by the Court of Assembly / Free Association, although that, even more than the Religion and Speech clauses, is the freedom that is at stake in this case.

The anorexic thinness of Kennedy’s decision portends the future bloatedness of the ravenous “progressive” beast that gorges on constitutionally protected rights, often in the service of sexual deviance.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Troubling-SCOTUS-Decision-on-Cake-Baker.mp3

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds. We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors. We need your support, and are deeply grateful for those who stand with.

The Internet Sales Tax: A Threat to Small Businesses and Federalism

Written by Ken Blackwell

A number of critical decisions are set to be released by the Supreme Court this month. One in particular could have wide-ranging impact on our economy and on the very principle of federalism.

Court Cases

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, the Court will decide whether to uphold its earlier decision that states cannot force businesses to collect and remit sales taxes unless the businesses has a physical presence in their state. A bad decision from the court — as well as possible legislation from Congress — would lead to Internet sales taxes. This would harm hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the nation and change the very face of the Internet economy.

In 1992, the Court decided in Quill Corp vs. North Dakota that states do not have the power to impose sales tax burdens on businesses with no physical presence in their state. This important precedent has prevented states from being able to tax, audit or regulate businesses and individuals that do not reside in their state.

State and local governments — and some allies in Congress — have tried to find a way to undo this precedent. The lure of additional revenue proving too tempting to pass up. The Wayfair decision will determine whether we continue this critical model — as will subsequent decisions by Congress.

Complications for Small Businesses

An entrepreneur who starts an online business should not be turned into a national tax collector. There are currently over 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the United States. If an Internet sales tax goes through, these small businesses will now be forced to figure out and collect the taxes for all those different jurisdictions.

As a former local and state official, I know firsthand how complicated these taxes can be. Certain products will qualify for one rate. A different product will have another tax rate. The taxes in one city, town or county will differ from the rate in other parts of the state.

Hard working entrepreneurs on their own, or with a few employees, would have to navigate that maze of taxes. Most will likely have to hire accountants or tax lawyers to help them figure it out — cutting into the bottom line for a small business. This will jeopardize profits and jobs.

More worrisome, such a tax would suddenly make those businesses vulnerable to audits or tax bills from states or localities they do not reside in or vote in. As a conservative, the last thing I want to see is entrepreneurs targeted by aggressive tax collection and audits from officials in other states.

As a letter signed by numerous conservative and taxpayer groups earlier this year pointed out, “dismantling the physical presence protection for remote retail sales could throw open the floodgates for states to aggressively attempt enforcement of not just their states tax laws, but also business and individual income tax rules, and even activist regulatory obligations on out-of-state entities.”

Taxation Without Representation

The Internet sales tax would be a rejection of our nation’s long-held belief in no taxation without representation. Allowing authorities to tax people who do not live or vote in their state and who will not benefit in any way from those taxes goes against the system of federalism that our founders created.

Supporters of the sales tax have claimed that states are losing tremendous revenue. The facts say otherwise. Former Rep. Chris Cox has long been a champion against Internet taxes. He pointed out in a recent WSJ op-ed that despite the claims by South Dakota in the case, “[t]he state’s own data show that sales and use tax revenue grew from $787.7 million in 2013 to $974.7 in 2017 — considerably faster than the state’s rate of economic growth.” He added that sales tax revenue has been booming in most states.

A Form of Cronyism

While it may seem like an Internet sales tax is a good way to stick it to some giant online retailers who are getting away with not paying their taxes, the exact opposite is true. The tax would in fact be a form of cronyism that helps these big retailers.

Amazon and Wal-Mart, among many others, already collect sales taxes since they have a physical presence all over the country. Those companies want an Internet sales tax because it would harm the small businesses who are competing with them. It gives the giant companies greater advantage. They have the resources and the personnel to figure out thousands of tax laws — small companies do not.

Pushing Internet Taxes

The coming court decision is not the only danger to small businesses. In recent years, many members of Congress, including Republicans who should oppose higher taxes, have tried to advance legislation that would allow such Internet taxes. During the omnibus spending bill debate, members tried to include this tax — with the support of Speaker Ryan.

Many believe there will be another attempt during a lame duck session. The GOP is having great success in cutting taxes, rolling back regulation and turning the economy around. The last thing they need to do is allow higher taxes and more intrusive government — as an Internet sales tax would do. Polls have consistently shown that Americans overwhelmingly oppose an Internet sales tax.

The coming weeks and months will be critical in this debate. Entrepreneurs and supporters of free-market principles must stand strong and fight any attempt to impose Internet sales taxes. We cannot allow policies that would raise taxes, hurt small businesses, and discourage entrepreneurship. We cannot undo the concept of no taxation without representation to help some big retailers and satisfy the revenue desires of politicians across the nation.

Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio State Treasurer, Ohio Secretary of State and Mayor of Cincinnati, serves on the boards of the National Taxpayers Union and the Club for Growth. He also served as a domestic policy advisor to the Trump Transition team.

PODCAST: Troubling SCOTUS Decision on Cake-Baker

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court Confronts California’s Abortion Craziness

On Tuesday [March 20th], the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for NIFLA vs. Becerra, the case which focuses on the “law that requires pregnancy centers to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.” In other words, pro-life pregnancy centers, which exist to offer women alternatives to abortion, would be required by law to tell their clients that the state can subsidize their abortions. But that hardly tells the story of how absurd this law is.

Certainly, it’s bad enough that the state thought it had the right to require pro-life pregnancy centers to inform their clients about abortion opportunities. The whole reason for the existence of these centers, many (or almost all?) of which are faith-based, is to tell pregnant women that they don’t have to kill their babies. To talk to them about the humanity of that child in the womb. To inform them about adoption. To share stories with them about other women who chose not to abort.

How on earth can anyone require them to say as well, “However, in case you’re interested, the state will help you terminate your pregnancy and snuff out that precious life in your womb.”

But, to repeat, that is only part of the story.

As became evident when the justices questioned the California attorneys, the law goes far beyond that simple requirement. Instead, it mandates that equal space be given to advertise the pro-abortion language. What’s more, it mandates that the pro-abortion announcement be made in 13 languages to be sure that all bases were covered.

Hank Berrien explains that the “law was adopted in California in 2015, and forced the pregnancy centers to post a prominent notice if they had ‘no licensed medical provider’ available. If the centers were licensed, they were forced to notify clients that the state offers ‘free or low-cost’ contraception, prenatal care and abortion.”

And, what, exactly would this look like?

The requirement would be so absurd that even ultra-liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a problem with it. As Berrien notes, “After Michael P. Farris, a lawyer for the centers, said advertisements, including billboards, would have to offer the information in large print and in 13 languages, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turned to the lawyer for California and stated, ‘If you have to say that, those two sentences in 13 different languages, it can be very burdensome,’ she said.”

And exactly how “burdensome” is “very burdensome”? The Los Angeles Times reports this enlightening dialogue:

“What would happen if an unlicensed center just had a billboard that said, ‘Choose Life.’ Would they have to make the disclosure?” [Justice Anthony] Kennedy asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Farris replied.

“It would be 29 words, in the same size font as ‘Choose Life’?” Kennedy continued.

Yes, Farris said, “and in the number of languages required by that county.”

Kennedy said he had heard all he needed to hear. “It seems to me that means that this is an undue burden. And that should suffice to invalidate the statute,” he said.

Kennedy, of course, is absolutely right, although calling this requirement “an undue burden” would be the equivalent of saying that it would be “an undue burden” to require a man to carry an elephant on his back.

In practical terms (and using hypothetical language, not even as cumbersome as what California requires), a billboard ad would look like this (relying on Google translate, and just sampling some of the state’s top 12 foreign languages):

Yes, this is what California required, as completely ridiculous as it seems. (And note again: This was not the 29-word announcement that Justice Kennedy referenced, nor did I post it in 13 languages.) And what message would get out most to the public? “Choose life” or, “The state is here to help pay for your abortions”?

For many reasons, this ridiculous law is not only burdensome. It is not only an infringement of individual and corporate freedoms. It is the imposition of state-endorsed speech, in strict violation of the conscience of many of its citizens. In short, it is an absolute outrage.

That’s why major media outlets, like the Los Angeles Times, stated that, “The Supreme Court sounded ready Tuesday to strike down a California disclosure law that requires pregnancy centers — including those that are faith-based — to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.”

It’s about time to push back against some of California’s craziness.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Homosexual “Catholic” Gets Scripture and Jack Phillips Wrong

A cursory look at recent words from prominent homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan who self-identifies as Catholic illustrates the ways homosexual Christians attempt to remake Scripture in their own image to serve their own desires.

Catholic revisionist Sullivan, a well-known cultural commentator, offered a fanciful and childish reinterpretation of Scripture when he wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips. It should be noted from the outset that Sullivan hopes Phillips wins, but also hopes he wins based on expressive speech arguments—not religious free exercise grounds.

Sullivan not-so-carefully constructed an ugly straw man that he then went about pummeling with weak, floppy punches that couldn’t knock down a thin man of straw let alone God’s enduring Word:

Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. It was precisely this tendency of the religious to place themselves above others, to create clear boundaries to avoid ‘contamination’ from ‘evildoers’ that Jesus uniquely violated and profoundly opposed. If Jesus is your guide, why is this kind of boundary observance such an important part of your faith? Are you afraid your own faith will be weakened by decorating a cake? Would you have ever had dinner with prostitutes or imperial tax collectors as Jesus famously did? What is this Christianity you are so dedicated to? Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost.

Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a type of union that is the antithesis of marriage in no way constitutes “sealing oneself off,” placing oneself “above others,” or avoiding “contamination” from “evil doers.” Nor is such a refusal impelled by fear of having one’s faith weakened. In reality, such refusal both reflects deep faith and strengthens faith through the trials (both figurative and literal) that ensue.

For Christians marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. Its essence is complementarity. Christ the bridegroom and his bride the church are different in nature and role. Therefore, a union of two people of the same sex would suggest that there is no difference in nature and role between Christ and the church. In addition, Christ himself explicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Moreover, God detests homosexual activity. A ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates an intrinsically non-marital union that is “consummated” by activity that God abhors is heretical. Those, like Jack Phillips, who own businesses that serve only sinners—including homosexuals—everyday, aren’t sealing themselves off by refusing to serve a heretical celebration that mocks marriage. They are serving and honoring God.

Nor is such a refusal indicative of lack of humility as Sullivan claims it is. Humility does not require Christians to refrain from making distinctions between right and wrong. And making distinctions between right and wrong actions does not constitute or reflect pride, arrogance, or a sinful sense of superiority. When Sullivan decries actions that he believes are wrong or when he refuses to be a part of some activity that he believes is wrong, is he guilty of unbiblical lack of humility?

Pastor and theologian John Piper writes this:

Humility begins with a sense of subordination to God in Christ.… Humility asserts truth not to bolster ego with control or with triumphs in debate, but as service to Christ and love to the adversary.

Truth is integral to biblical humility.

Sullivan then makes the tiresome claim that because Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, there should be no boundaries regarding the types of events that Christians serve, facilitate, or celebrate. This criticism implies that Christians who refuse to be part of homosexual faux-wedding celebrations also refuse to eat with homosexuals. Does Sullivan have any evidence for such an ugly claim?

Jesus did, indeed, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors. He did not, however, serve, facilitate, celebrate, or participate in celebrations of prostitution or of the exploitation of the poor through excessive, unjust taxation. Nor did he just hang out chewing the fat with prostitutes, tax collectors, and people who favored other forms of sin.

Rather, he told them to “go and sin no more,” to repent and follow him. He told the sinners he spent time with that “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” and “whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

At the feast with tax collectors, Jesus described them like this:

Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Jesus broke bread with tax collectors, calling them sick and in need of healing and sinners in need of repentance. Sullivan left out those inconvenient details about the time Jesus spent with sinners.

Sullivan is wrong again. God did, indeed, establish boundaries for his followers. In Ephesians 5:11, the apostle Paul commands Christians to:

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Sullivan is right too. We should go to sinners. We should eat with them. And we should to the best of our ability and in humility emulate Christ by sharing the gospel message.

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Homosexual-Catholic-Gets-Scripture-and-Jack-Phillips-Wrong-2.mp3

Editor’s note: Laurie is the featured guest on this week’s Illinois Family Spotlight podcast. Check it out HERE.

End-of-Year Challenge

As you may know, IFI has a year-end matching challenge to raise $160,000. That’s right, a great group of IFI supporters are colluding with us to provide an $80,000 matching challenge to help support IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.

Please consider helping us reach this goal! Your donation will help us stand strong in 2018! To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328. You can also send a gift to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 876
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477

Why the Masterpiece Cake Case Matters to All Americans

Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake with the message, “God hates fags”? Should an African American t-shirt maker be required by law to design a t-shirt saying, “Long live the KKK?” Should a Muslim caterer be required by law to provide pork for a secular event? Should a Jewish photographer be required to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath? The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?

That is the big question the U.S. Supreme Court will be answering this week when it hears the Masterpiece Cakes case involving Christian baker Jack Phillips.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Phillips, has pointed out that: 1) “Jack does not discriminate,” and he was perfectly happy to sell the gay couple, who subsequently took him to court, cookies and brownies and anything else pre-made off of his shelves; 2) “Jack has turned down other cakes in the past,” including Halloween cakes and lewd cakes; 3) “Jack has faced anti-religious bigotry as well as threats and intimidation simply because he declined to promote an event,” so he is the one being singled out for unfair treatment; 4) “Jack owns a private family business, and he doesn’t give up his rights when he sells his art,” and by calling his business “Masterpiece Cakes,” he is making clear that for him, they are works of art; 5) accordingly, “Jack’s shop has been called an ‘art gallery of cakes’”; and 6) “Wedding cakes made up about 40 percent of Jack’s business,” and these are all custom designed. But due to Colorado’s laws and legal rulings to date, he has had to drop this part of his business entirely.

Now, common sense would say that this case should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk win for Jack Phillips and his attorneys. And in principle, I agree. The problem, however, is that “gay rights” have been exalted to such a degree that these “rights” trump all other rights and freedoms, including our freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion.

In the case at hand, because Phillips is a committed Christian, he doesn’t make cakes mixed with alcohol (nor can he be required to), he doesn’t make cakes for lewd bachelor parties (nor can he be required to), and he doesn’t make cakes for horror-themed events (nor can he be required to). But when he cannot, in good conscience, use his artistic skills to make a cake for a same-sex “wedding,” he can be charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws to the point that the state can now discriminate against him as a Christian.

Put another way, you can freely exercise your Christian beliefs unless those beliefs offend gays. In that case, you’re breaking the law.

And what if a Hindu came in and wanted a, “Krishna is Lord” cake? Phillips could politely decline, without legal penalty or pressure. The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, “Jesus is Lord.”

But wouldn’t that offend the Hindu and the Christian wanting to buy the cakes? Perhaps so, but the bakers are rightly protected by the law and cannot be penalized for refusing the business.

Why, then, are gays and lesbians treated differently? Why are they put in a special category?

The sympathetic answer would be that society has overcompensated for perceived past injustices. And so, the pendulum has swung from one side (mistreatment of gays and lesbians) to the other side (overprotection of gays and lesbians).

The more realistic answer is that some gay activists have always had as their ultimate goal the silencing of those who resist their cause.

As a Christian attorney once commented to me, “Those who were once put in jail want to put us in jail.”

In the days ahead, many on the left will argue that Phillips was guilty of discriminating against gay customers. But that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and if the Supreme Court finds him guilty, the implications for America will be massive.

It will mean that the highest court in the land has ruled that, in virtually all conceivable cases, gay rights trump religious rights. And it will mean that Christians in particular can be forced to violate their consciences and their deeply held, historic beliefs under penalty of law, with the real potential of losing their very livelihoods. And should they still refuse to comply, it could mean a jail sentence too.

While some on the left (including LGBT activists) will say, “This is not what we intended,” plenty of others will gloat. After all, if we deserved to be thrown to the lions in one generation, it’s no big deal to imprison us in another generation.

I’m hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court does the right thing. If not, my leftist readers may mock my words today but you will mark them tomorrow.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

Pray for Religious Liberty at the SCOTUS

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear a case that will either preserve our First Amendment religious liberty in the United States or diminish it.

The case is about Jack Phillips, a bakery owner in Colorado who in 2012 declined to create a wedding cake to celebrate so-called same-sex “marriage.” He turned down the job because doing so would violate his deeply held Christian belief that God created the institution as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips offered to make the same-sex couple any other type of baked good or sell them a pre-made cake, but they refused. A complaint was soon filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “sexual orientation” discrimination.

The commission ordered Phillips either to comply with the state-enforced morality by creating wedding cakes that violate his religious beliefs or stop providing wedding cakes altogether. The commission’s ruling also mandated “re-education” training for Phillips’ employees and requires him to submit quarterly reports to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Thankfully, SCOTUS has agreed to hear this case. On December 5th, attorneys will present their oral arguments. No person should be forced by the government to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. This includes artists like Jack, who shouldn’t be coerced into making art with a message that he considers immoral.

This may be one of the most consequential religious liberty cases to be heard by the SCOTUS in decades. Therefore, IFI is calling for focused prayer for this case and preservation of religious liberty in our nation.

PLEASE PRAY…

for clarity of thought for the attorneys defending Jack Phillips

for the U.S. Supreme Court Justices considering this case

for the Lord to preserve religious liberty in the United States

for Jack Phillips and his family as they continue to courageously challenge government tyranny in the courts

for the oral arguments on December 5th

for God to receive honor and glory even in the midst of increasing opposition to His Word

Please continue to lift this case up in prayer throughout the next several weeks, and share this information with like-minded Christians. You can also share this article on social media.

#JusticeForJack

#ReligiousLiberty

Illinois Law Could be Impacted by California Right of Conscience Case if it is Heard by SCOTUS

In a fast-moving story, right of conscience cases are moving forward and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here are just two recent headlines from Life News:

October 30: Pregnancy Centers Ask Supreme Court to Overturn California Law Forcing Them to Promote Abortions

October 31: Judge Blocks California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

In a case that could impact Illinois, Life News reports, “California pregnancy centers could hear any day now if the United States Supreme Court will hear their appeal for relief from a pro-abortion state law”:

Their cases involve a pro-abortion California law that forces pregnancy centers to promote abortions. Deceptively named “The Reproductive FACT Act” by its pro-abortion authors, the 2016 law is the subject of multiple lawsuits. It forces about 200 pregnancy help non-profits to either promote taxpayer-funded abortions through the state or face heavy fines.

Jay Alan Sekulow, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice which is representing several pregnancy centers, said the case is about whether California can “compel nonprofit, faith-based, pro-life licensed medical facilities, against their religious convictions and identity to advertise a government program that provides free or low-cost abortions.”

If that sounds familiar, it is, because back in 2016, Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1564, which forced

medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers “they reasonably believe may offer” them. Two federal laws, known as the Coats-Snowe amendment and the Hyde-Weldon amendment, together prohibit states that receive federal funding from forcing pro-life physicians and entities to refer women for abortion or to make arrangements for their referral. Illinois law also prohibits government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so.

Since then, the Alliance for Defending Freedom, alongside attorneys at Mauck & Baker, filed suit on behalf of Illinois clients to overturn the law.

As IFI reported back in August,

a Federal District Court granted the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and several pro-life pregnancy centers a preliminary injunction against an Illinois law that forces pro-life healthcare professionals to make abortion referrals. The injunction prohibits the State from enforcing the law against healthcare facilities or physicians who have a conscience objection to performing abortions or making abortion referrals.

Attorney Noel W. Sterett told the Illinois Family Institute that the Illinois case is now proceeding through the discovery phase.

Life News reports that whether the challenge to the California law will be heard by the United States Supreme Court might be known as early as Monday.

The Justices have considered the appeals for more than three weeks in their weekly conferences, suggesting at least several of them are inclined to hear the cases.

Recently, lower courts have split on controversies arising from state regulations of medical professions.

The American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow said the law violates “the principle that one cannot be conscripted into acting as a ventriloquist’s dummy for a government message.”

“This law is like forcing the Sierra Club to advocate for oil spills or demanding St. Jude expose their patients to lead poisoning,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing another group of California pregnancy centers.

“However, this law is actually much more repulsive. While those situations might cause unintended harm, abortion is intended — even specifically designed — to kill.”

Here is Mauck & Baker’s Noel W. Sterett on the topic of the Illinois law:

“The government has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers in Illinois to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry. A law that targets medical professionals because of their pro-life views and right of conscience is unconstitutional and unethical.”

In the Life News story from October 31, Jay Hobbs reports:

In a major victory for free speech, Riverside County Superior Court Justice Gloria C. Trask ruled late Monday that California must not force pro-life pregnancy medical clinics to post signage promoting state-covered abortions to their clients.

The October 31 Life News article also includes a reference to the above-referenced statewide preliminary injunction on the 2016 Illinois law.

The Illinois Family Institute will continue to monitor the news regarding both the Illinois and California lawsuits. Please pray for the ultimate demise of these tyrannical laws.

Download the IFI App!

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

Key Features:

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

Judge Loses Her Position for Belief in Traditional Marriage

Busy schedule? Valid reason. Don’t know the couple? Valid reason. Watching football? Still a valid reason. Violates your conscience? You’re fired. Or so goes the logic of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

In December 2014, a reporter asked Judge Ruth Neely whether her faith would allow her to perform a same-sex “wedding” in her official capacity as a local municipal judge. Citing her belief in the Biblical definition of marriage, Judge Ruth Neely said she could not. Judge Neely had not been asked to do a same-sex ceremony. In spite of the fact that many other judges in the district were willing to do such ceremonies, a mere comment to a reporter was enough to bring judgment on Judge Neely.

In March 2015, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics filed a complaint against her, alleging that her comments about marriage constituted judicial misconduct, and sought to remove her from both her roles as a judge.

Judge Neely appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, arguing that her removal based on her comments to the reporter would violate her First Amendment free-exercise and free speech rights. The Supreme Court disagreed and publicly censured Judge Neely and forced her to stop solemnizing marriages. Within a week she lost her magistrate position.

Wyoming Supreme Court said that it had to punish Judge Neely to uphold “judicial integrity” despite “no evidence” of Judge Neely’s beliefs harming “respect for the judiciary” or “any person.”

Wyoming law gives municipal judges wide discretion in deciding who they will marry. Judges are allowed to refuse to perform a wedding if they will not marry strangers, if they would rather go to the big football game, or even if they simply don’t feel like marrying the couple. It is only a religious reason that brings legal hostility.

Judge Neely receives no state compensation for performing weddings nor was it argued that she would not recognize a same-sex marriage in acting in her official capacity.

On August 4, 2017, Judge Neely, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. The Court has not made it clear whether it will grant the petition.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

The U.S. Supreme Court and Religious Liberty

Great news! On June 26th, U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 ruling in favor of religious liberty!

The High Court ruled in favor of a church in Missouri that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground safety project because of a restriction that prohibited state taxpayer funding for religious institutions.

The case involves a Missouri preschool that was denied a state grant for rubberized playground surface material solely because it’s a church that runs the preschool.

Chief Justice John Roberts summed things up near the end of his majority opinion saying:

“The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution… It cannot stand.”

Illinois Family Institute praises the decision as a great victory for all people of faith!

This ruling makes is clear that government bodies and public programs cannot and should not discriminate against Christian organizations merely because they are religious. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment right to freely exercise religious faith in the public square.

Christian organizations throughout the state of Illinois and across the country provide much-needed services to young students, senior citizens, the poor, addicted, and under-served. It’s wrong to treat them differently simply because their service is inspired by the Word of God or their love for Jesus Christ.

Christian Liberty vs. Special LGBTQIA “Rights”

The U.S. Supreme Court also announced they will take up the Masterpiece Cakes case out of Colorado. This case is about whether the government can punish people of faith for not participating in religious ceremonies with which they disagree.

Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakes, had a complaint filed against him for not baking a cake for a so-called same-sex wedding ceremony. Phillips had provided countless services to other LGBTQ customers, but simply did not want to participate in a religious ceremony – a wedding – that violated his religious beliefs.

The government should not be punishing Christians who merely want to live and work by the dictates of their faith.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case that will decide the conflict between protected class status for same-sex attraction, sexual behavior and religious freedom. Please pray that they will rule wisely in this case.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

A Question of Lawful Authority

Baseball season gets underway this week, a welcome distraction from the political battles in Washington.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate is warring over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. The Republicans say he’s a stellar nominee, a judicial umpire who calls balls and strikes as he sees them. Democrats, led by New York’s Charles Schumer, however, say the judge is a creature of “special interests” who would slide into a base with spikes up and who deserves to be filibustered.

Who are those “special interests” you might ask? Well, they would be anyone who disagrees with progressives, which the November election indicated is at least half the country if not more.

The Republicans say Judge Gorsuch will help the Court return to constitutional principles. Democrats claim that he will “undo the gains” made by decades of liberal jurisprudence. We can only pray that they’re both right.

Over the years, federal courts – especially the U.S. Supreme Court – acquired an out-sized role in the nation’s affairs, especially during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. Think of the federal government as a three-bodied creature, with one of the bodies in a black robe towering over the others with a giant Nancy Pelosi gavel.

Restraining the U.S. Supreme Court’s power, even slightly, has been a non-starter. Congress is packed with lawyers who dream of serving on or before the highest bench someday. It’s also an open secret that many politicians are relieved when hot button issues slide off their plates and directly onto the Court’s docket.

Nonetheless, given the Court’s near-omnipotence, the central question of what constitutes lawful authority will dominate public discussion in years to come, especially if there is a conservative majority. Right now, “lawful authority” is in the eye of the beholder on many levels.

For example, progressives applauded a federal judge in Washington State in February for overruling President Trump’s order temporarily barring immigrants from seven terror-prone Muslim-majority nations. The judge snapped his fingers, extending constitutional rights to foreigners not even in this country and accused Mr. Trump of racist motives for good measure. Another judge in Hawaii piled on last week by ruling against Mr. Trump’s re-written order affecting six countries. Progressives again cheered.

On the other hand, when a federal judge in Texas ruled in 2015 that President Obama had usurped congressional authority with executive actions shielding five million illegal immigrants from deportation, progressives pledged resistance and urged people to take to the streets.

Progressives look with favor on the 500 or so “sanctuary” cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration laws and procedures. Conscience, they say, overrides mere lawfulness. Except, of course, when it comes to Christian bakers, florists, wedding planners and photographers. They must be forced by law to violate theirs.

Only a few months ago, progressives cheered an edict from the Obama Administration ordering all school systems in America to accommodate female-identified males in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms or risk losing federal funds. Can’t these schools follow the rule of law?

And what about those scoundrels, the Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned businesses that don’t want to obey Obamacare’s abortifacient mandate? What are they trying to do, provoke anarchy?

When the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United restored collective political free speech, President Obama pilloried the justices in person during the 2010 State of the Union address, badly misrepresenting the facts of the ruling. Fellow progressives vowed to see the opinion overturned.

But when the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges invented a “right” to same-sex marriage in the penumbras of the Constitution in 2015, overriding state marriage laws – 31 of them constitutional amendments approved by voters – progressives instantly pronounced it “settled law.”

They said the same about the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that struck down abortion laws in every state – “settled law.”

If these examples leave you confused about what is actually lawful authority, don’t worry. We have an omniscient media to explain it to us. If they feature lots of people “hailing” a ruling or order, you can bet it’s about another judicial or executive demolition job on America’s heritage, the Constitution, founding values and genuine civil rights. If they quote lots of people condemning the ruling or order as an abuse of authority, it’s a clear victory for constitutional governance.

To progressives and the lockstep media, legitimate authority means only advancing progressive causes. If so, it’s no big deal for liberal presidents or judges to run outside the baselines when they need to score some runs.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com