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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s a doozy of a “solution.”

First, a few thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

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

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

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

Written by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

Remember when Bernie Sanders passionately attacked budget office nominee Russell Vought because Vought believes salvation comes only by faith in Jesus Christ—something Christianity has taught for two millennia?

It looks like it’s open season for anti-Christian bigots to hunt down and destroy any Christian nominated to public office—especially if that Christian doesn’t toe the line of environmental political correctness. Forget Article 6 of the Constitution insisting “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Michael Dourson, whom Trump has nominated to head the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical safety office, is taking the same kind of fire. Dourson is an environmental health professor in the University of Cincinnati’s College of Medicine. He’s a “board-certified toxicologist with an international reputation for excellence in environmental risk assessment.” He’s co-published more than 150 papers on risk assessment methods and chemical-specific analyses.

But he’s also a Christian who, like any serious Christian, tries to integrate his faith with all his life. That just doesn’t sit well with some folks.

CUE THE OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE

Raymond Barfield, a professor of pediatrics and Christian philosophy at Duke University, is upset. It seems Dourson wrote that chemical analysis provides some evidence that the Shroud of Turin—which allegedly wrapped Jesus in his burial—might be authentic. Dourson’s not sure. Sounds like the attitude of a good scientist to me.

But there’s more. Dourson isn’t convinced that the chemical risks from flame-retardant fabrics outweigh the fire-prevention benefits. He points out that “exposures from consumer products were much lower” than those involved in a study claiming significant risk. That’s a fairly typical weakness of many environmental risk studies. They expose laboratory animals to extremely high levels of a suspect chemical, discover ill effects, then try to extrapolate to human risk at much lower exposure levels.

Barfield disagrees, and seeks to discredit Dourson because he made $10,000 consulting for a flame retardant industry group. Dourson had questioned a study warning of potential harm from flame retardant chemicals because it hadn’t been replicated yet. That’s confusing, because replication is the hallmark of good science.

As a professor of philosophy, which usually requires some knowledge of logic, Barfield should know that attacking Dourson’s motives because of money commits the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. He further labeled Dourson’s argument that the risks from fires are higher than the risks from fire-retardant chemicals as “pure utilitarianism.” That label’s red meat for Christians.

Written by Casey Ryan

A Colorado baker has a right not to make a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage that is against his faith, and the LGBT agenda is not a new civil rights movement, black Christian leaders said Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine leaders spoke in support of Jack Phillips, whose lawyers will ask the high court Dec. 5 to affirm that his free speech and religious liberty rights under the First Amendment allow him to turn down a request by two male customers to create such a cake.

“The First Amendment gives us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion,” Garland Hunt, senior pastor at The Father’s House, a nondenominational church in Atlanta, said at the press conference in defense of Phillips, who was not there. “The freedom of religion is an inalienable right that comes from God.”

In 2012, Phillips declined the business of two men who visited his bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked him to create a cake celebrating their wedding in Massachusetts.

His Christian faith, Phillips has said, teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. He also has said he doesn’t design and make cakes that go against his faith in other ways, such as being sexually suggestive or depicting Satan.

Persecution of Christians is real and “coming for America,” Hunt said.

Dean Nelson, co-founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of North Carolina and senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said Phillips is being attacked because he is a Christian.

“Jack is an honorable man who has served his community through his business for all people, regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual identity,” Nelson said. “Jack as a Christian is compelled to love all people, and this is what he has done for decades.”

The press conference was organized by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that defends religious liberty and represents Phillips, and sponsored by the Frederick Douglass Foundation, which promotes Christian and Republican values. The foundation also has launched a website in support of Phillips called We Got Your Back, Jack.

Janet Boynes, author of Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom, said the civil rights movement started to help blacks gain their rights and sexual behavior is not the same as skin color.

“I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” Boynes said.

LGBT activists want special rights, she said, and she is concerned that people are falling for the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. American culture is in a “downward spiral,” she said.

“God only condones and blesses sex between a man and a woman in marriage,” she said.

William Avon Keen, president of the Virginia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization co-founded by civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., said activists for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have hijacked civil rights.

Unlike many LGBT activists, Keen said, he dealt with separate and unequal public facilities when he was growing up.

Keen said the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.

“We as Christians, we feel that murder is a sin. … We feel that marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman,” Keen said. “We don’t believe in the third gender.”

He said the civil rights movement of the 1960s was “anti-sin,” and that today Christians are “too quiet” on societal issues and need to speak up.

“It is an injustice for our nation or anyone to try to force an individual to deny their faith,” Keen said.

Article originally posted on Stream.org.

Last week, President Donald Trump announced that his administration will exempt employers who have religious or moral objections to providing contraceptives, including drugs that can cause abortions. This is an important action to restore religious liberties that were stripped away in the Obamacare HHS mandate.

The Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties brought the Obamacare violation of religious freedom to the national spotlight when they fought the mandate at the U.S. Supreme Court. The sincere religiously informed consciences of the owners of Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby played heavily into the opinion of Justice Samuel Alito, which upheld religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

“Our legal team went to court in 2012 to fight this unjust mandate on behalf of the Hahns, a Mennonite family and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties,” said Michael Geer, President of the Pennsylvania Family Institute. “Thankfully, in 2014, the Supreme Court victory granted relief for the Hahns and the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) in a landmark ruling. We’re glad now to see that other religious employers and ministries will be protected as well, thanks to the President’s actions.”

“President Trump deserves to be thanked for upholding his promise on religious freedom,” said Paul Weber, President of Focus on the Family’s Family Policy Alliance. “And we’re grateful for the team of attorneys brought together by the Pennsylvania Family Institute that paved the way to this victory through their outstanding work that led to the Supreme Court win.”

Randall Wenger, Chief Counsel for the Independence Law Center, was interviewed by a local Fox affiliate outside of Conestoga Wood to discuss this policy improvement. “The first liberty in our Bill of Rights is the free exercise of religion, and what this mandate is doing is protecting the rights of conscience not only for religious people but for non religious people.”

In response to Leftist hysteria over this minor change, National Review’s David French explains that “Totally ignored by these borderline-apocalyptic assessments of what was, in fact, a modest rollback is the reality that birth control has only very recently come to be viewed as an entitlement.”

IFI joins other pro-family groups across the nation in applauding this important action by President Trump. Moreover, we stand in full agreement with his statement on the issue: “No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith.”

Oct. 27th – IFI Annual Banquet with Lt. Col. Allen West

Join us in Hoffman Estates for IFI’s annual banquet on Friday, Oct. 27th.  This year we are celebrating our 25th Anniversary with American hero Lt. Col. Allen West as our keynote speaker. Space is limited, don’t miss this special event. Click HERE for more information.

Call (708) 781-9328 for more information.

Written by Victoria Cobb

For more than 60 years, the IRS has used the “Johnson Amendment” to censor what churches and pastors preach from the pulpit. Under the Johnson Amendment, pastors’ First Amendment rights have become bargaining chips to be exchanged for a tax status. Pastors who share truth on biblical issues – like the sanctity of life and marriage – could risk intrusive IRS audits, incur steep fines, and even jeopardize their church’s tax-exempt status.

It’s time to fix the Johnson Amendment. Right now, we have the opportunity to restore free speech to all nonprofits, including churches and their leaders, through the Free Speech Fairness Act sponsored by Oklahoma Senator, and former youth pastor, James Lankford.

The FSFA is the culmination of nearly 10 years of advocacy to fix the Johnson Amendment and put an end to IRS intimidation and censorship of America’s pulpits. Unfortunately, a small, but vocal, group of religious organizations is petitioning Congress to keep the Johnson Amendment. We need to ensure that Congress hears from the rest of our religious leaders, who overwhelmingly believe that pastors and churches should be free to apply Scripture to every aspect of life—including candidates and elections—as their conscience requires.

If you are a pastor, please read the letter and consider signing your name in support of this important bill. If you’re not a pastor, please encourage your pastor to sign today.

By signing your name to the letter, your voice will join a nationwide movement of pastors calling on Congress to pass the Free Speech Fairness Act and restore freedom of speech to America’s pulpits. Visit www.pulpitfreedom.org to learn more.

Victoria Cobb is President of The Family Foundation of Virginia. She also serves as the organization’s spokesperson and is regularly in demand as a speaker and commentator on family issues in the media. She has been with the pro-family organization since 2000.

This article was originally published at The Family Foundation blog.

Jack Phillips’ case going before the U.S. Supreme Court later this fall is a case that has the potential to alter the course of American history. If Jack loses in court, our ability to live out our faith will be fundamentally changed…for the worse.

Yet many people are unfamiliar with Jack’s case.

Jack is the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop and is being sued by the state of Colorado for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding.

While many want to say Jack wants the right to deny service to gay customers, that couldn’t be further from the truth. Jack served many gay customers – but it was when he was asked to participate in a religious service that he disagreed with that he declined.

Watch and share this video below from Alliance Defending Freedom – and you’ll see why this case is so important.

After an embarrassing rant about Christianity somehow disqualifying an individual from public office and impying that a religious test should be implemented for those seeking to hold public office, California Democratic U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein is doubling down on her remarks.

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Feinstein attacked U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing. Barrett, a mom of seven children, and a former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was basically told her Catholic religion should keep her from being qualified for the judgeship.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” said Feinstein. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”

WATCH: Sen. Feinstein to appeals court nominee Amy Barrett, @NotreDame law prof/#Catholic mother of 7: "The dogma lives loudly within you." pic.twitter.com/mpDgNZGRsa

— Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) September 6, 2017

There was justifiably a huge backlash against Feinstein’s comments, but rather than retract them and issue an apology, Feinstein instead is doubling down on her statement, while unsuccessfully trying to explain away her obvious prejudice for people of faith.

On an appearance this weekend with CNN’s State of the Union, Feinstein said:

“This is a woman who has no real trial or court experience,” she argued. “And, therefore, there is no record. She’s a professor, which is fine, but all we have to look at are her writings, and in her writings, she makes some statements which are questionable, which deserve questions.”

Barrett was nominated by President Trump to fill a vacancy on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Perhaps Feinstein is concerned with the idea of having a judge who clerked for Scalia, a “lion of the law” on the Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Feinstein’s comments are representative of a larger feeling within the Democratic party. This is illustrated by the fact that during the same hearing in which Feinstein told Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you,” another prominent Democrat, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, asked her, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

Questions and statements like these are entirely inappropriate and have no bearing whatsoever in determining Barrett’s qualifications and abilities.

Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins says:

The reality is, liberals have as many deep convictions as conservatives — they’re just not as often rooted in the Christian religion. So to suggest that they can be impartial and believers can’t is not only untrue, it’s unfair. Telling Barrett that the “dogma lives loudly within [her]” is to ignore the dogma that lives even louder within Senate Democrats.

C.C. Peckhold, writing for the Wall Street Journal says:

Sens. Feinstein and Durbin were troubled not by Ms. Barrett’s Catholicism, but by her failure to prove her religion could conform to a more dogmatic progressivism. The “religious test” Democrats want to impose isn’t about religion per se; it’s about ensuring that every religious claim can be bent to more comprehensive political aims. It’s about defining anyone who dissents from the mores of the sexual revolution as disqualified from public office. That’s what makes Ms. Feinstein’s questioning so chilling.

Yet Feinstein stressed during the CNN interview that she has no animosity towards people of faith. “I think Catholicism is a great religion. I have great respect for it,” Feinstein said. “I’ve known many of the archbishops who have been in our community, we’ve had dinner together, we’ve spoken together over many, many decades, and I’ve tried to be helpful to the church whenever I could.”

IFI Faith Forum
Join us in Medinah, Illinois, to hear world renowned Christian apologist Ray Comfort. Space is limited, don’t miss this special one time event. Click HERE for more information.

Tickets are just $10 each. Call (708) 781-9328 or purchase tickets below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you hear the harmonious choir of diverse voices echoing from the Downers Grove Public Library Board of Trustees? You can’t? Oh, that’s right, Tuesday night in the service of diversity and inclusion, the Downers Grove Village Council expelled the one conservative member from the library board.

The controversy began when a “monitor” from the League of Women Voters attended a recent library board meeting at which board member Arthur Jaros expressed concerns over these three items that had been unexpectedly added by a yet-unnamed staff member (or members) to a proposed long-range strategic plan:

1. Provide regular training for all staff in equity, diversity, and inclusion.
2. Incorporate inclusive practices into library services.
3. Create a diversity strategy for hiring.

The “monitor,” Susan D. Farley, claims that Jaros “proceeded to continue to express his personal view on how we should… reject any… people different from white straight people.” This claim—which Jaros vigorously denies—clearly suggests that Jaros seeks to reject persons and that he holds racist views.

Jaros objected to #2 because he believed the term “inclusive” was too ambiguous. He’s of course right. Only sociopaths would think all phenomena or all perspectives on all phenomena should be included in libraries, particular in the children’s section. The library board agreed and struck item #2 from the list.

Jaros objected to #3 because such language usually refers to hiring quotas based on identity politics, and he believes that hiring should be based on merit. He’s right again. I would go further to say that the term “diversity”—like “inclusive”—is too ambiguous. Diversity is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It simply refers to differences. In the service of diversity, does the board want to hire KKK members, infantilists, and Antifa anarchists who have no respect for authority, rules, policies, or social conventions?

Most Americans by now know that “diversity” is code for race, class, sex, homosexuality, and “transgenderism.” The staff member (or members) who surreptitiously added these action items likely meant that the library should hire based on membership in these categories. What this phantom staff member (or members) surely did not mean is that library hiring decisions should ensure ideological diversity among staff members. The board voted to change the word “hiring” to “recruiting.” Meh.

And now we come to the part that twisted up the knickers of monitor Farley. Jaros opposed any requirement that all staff members be “trained” in “diversity” and “inclusion.”

“Diversity” and “inclusion” are terms exploited by the Left to justify purchasing picture books that celebrate two phenomena integral to Leftist sexuality dogma: homosexuality and biological-sex rejection (aka “transgenderism”). Leftists’ commitments to diversity and inclusion are, shall we say, inconsistently applied. Sometimes that is a good thing.

You don’t (yet) see librarians bleating about the dearth of picture books positively portraying polyamory. If love is love, why no picture books about consensually non-monogamous love for the kiddies? Nor do you see those bigoted speciesist librarians begging for picture books that celebrate zoophilia.

Could they be imposing their own prejudiced, provincial, hateful moral beliefs on all of society?

In order to do just that—that is, impose their subjective moral beliefs on all of society—social regressives continue to compare skin color to homosexuality and now to the science-denying “trans” ideology. But subjective erotic/romantic feelings or internal subjective desires to be the opposite sex have no points of correspondence to skin color—an inconvenient fact that Leftists ignore so they can virtue-signal and call people hateful bigots. Just don’t go calling them “hateful bigots” for their moral views. That would be bullying and make them feel unsafe.

Downers Grove Public Library presumably embraces the Library Bill of Rights that it includes in its library board policies:

• … Materials should not be excluded because of the… views of those contributing to their creation.

• Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current… issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

• Libraries should challenge censorship…. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

• A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of… views.

Apparently diversity of views matters when it comes to resources but not when it comes to the composition of the board. Instead of banning books, the Village Council of Downers Grove bans people.

“Progressives” are nothing if not hypocrites. While they claim to oppose “book banning,” they engage in de facto “book banning” by simply neither purchasing nor requesting books that offend their sexuality sensibilities. While claiming to value diversity, they seek nothing less than a complete ideological monopoly when it comes to their doctrinaire sexuality ideology.  While claiming to value tolerance and inclusivity, they kick board members who don’t toe the ideological line off library boards. In their foolishness, presumptuousness, and self-righteousness, regressives violate their own principles, stooping to coercive and oppressive tactics to eradicate diversity and dissent.

“Progressives” claim to value diversity and inclusion even as they fight like pit bulls to quash both. The idea-police rationalize their censorship, people-banning, and assault on the First Amendment by arguing that some ideas may hurt the feelings of some people. So, are we as a society willing to apply that principle consistently? Are we willing to say that any idea that may hurt the feelings of people must be banned from public expression and that anyone who expresses those ideas must be prohibited from working or serving on diverse boards in America?

In prior rational times, safety entailed the absence of physical harm—not the absence of ideas we don’t like to hear. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak freely and that includes the right of people whom Leftists hate to express moral propositions Leftists hate.

You know what’s as least as scary as book-banning? A society that can no longer distinguish right from wrong is at least as scary. A society that prevents people from working because of their moral beliefs about sexual behavior is at least as scary. And a society that places sexual desires above children’s needs, religious liberty, and speech rights is at least as scary.

In the packed room of 200 people on Tuesday night, 21 people spoke: 16 in favor of the village council’s decision to oust Jaros, 5 opposed. In a town of 49, 500, are there not 20—or 200—conservatives with the spine to come alongside Jaros?

Fortunately, Jaros is an attorney. He’s suing monitor Farley, the local chapter of the League of Women Voters, and village councilman Greg Hosé for defamation.

Remember James Damore, the Google software engineer who in a measured and smart internal memo made a persuasive case that Google was an “ideological echo chamber” and was promptly fired? Downers Grove Mayor Martin Tully and his Gang of Six just “googled” Arthur Jaros.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Downers-Grove-Village-Council-Ousts-Only-Conservative-Library-Board-Member-in-Service-of-Inclusion.mp3

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

It does make a difference.

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

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

Dear Members of the Media:

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

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

The heavily footnoted 8-page letter also includes this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are other articles of note about the letter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does make a difference.

The ACLU is lending its full support to the reintroduction of the “Do No Harm Act” to make sure that religious freedom guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) doesn’t allow Christians and others of faith to deny services to homosexuals and transgenders. Passage of the Do No Harm Act, says the ACLU, will “prevent discrimination under the guise of religious liberty.”

But Matt Barber, founder of Barbwire.com and a constitutional attorney, says the ACLU is really fighting to create a license to discriminate against Christians.

“They presume with no real logic or history in law or any constitutional support that – as Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s appointment to the EEOC, once said – When religious liberty comes into conflict with so-called ‘gay rights’, gays win, Christians lose,” Barber says, paraphrasing Feldblum’s original remark.

He adds that nothing can be further from the truth. As he explains, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion.

“The ACLU wants enumerated civil rights for these new-fangled gay rights, but these are not rights; they are gay wrongs,” Barber tells OneNewsNow. “These are behaviors and temptations that the Founding Fathers called a crime against nature.”

Barber concludes that imagining the Constitution supports “gay rights” is mind-boggling.

The Do No Harm Act to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was reintroduced to Congress on July 13, 2017, by Democratic Congressmen Joe Kennedy (Massachusetts) and Bobby Scott (Virginia).

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com