Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: CCI backs Dillard on “litigious nightmare” claim
Next Post: We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming…
Posted in:
* From an e-mail…
Rich,
Illinois Family Institute agrees with the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Senator Kirk Dillard. Civil Unions is proving to be a litigious nightmare! Just ask the Bed & Breakfast owners from Paxton, Illinois who only want to operate their business according to the dictates of their faith and not be forced to celebrate something they believe to immoral.
Here are just a few examples that prove just how litigious the marriage redefinition agenda is:
• Washington State is suing a Christian florist who declined to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual “wedding” ceremony. The state is threatening thousands of dollars in fines and a requirement that the elderly florist provide floral arrangements to any homosexual couple that seeks her services.
• The Christian owners of an Oregon bakery were contacted by the Oregon Department of Justice and were told that they are being investigated because of a discrimination complaint that followed their refusal to violate their beliefs by providing a wedding cake for a lesbian “wedding” ceremony.
• A Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii has been ordered to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wants to stay there, thus violating her religious convictions.
• And in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the owner of Elane Photography declined to provide her skills and services for a lesbian commitment, explaining that doing so would violate her conscience as a Christian. As a result of a complaint being filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a fine of $6,600 was issued against this small business for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”
There are many more cases like these, and many more will be coming down the litigation pike. In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “equality” or “tolerance.” And they clearly demonstrate their lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinions.
Moreover, why would proponents of marriage redefinition seek to punish people of faith through litigation? Why wouldn’t proponents tolerate another person’s right to freely exercise their religious beliefs and an individual’s right of conscience, and their right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage”?
Sincerely,
David E. Smith, Executive Director
Illinois Family Institute
I’m busy with other stuff right now, so go ahead and discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: CCI backs Dillard on “litigious nightmare” claim
Next Post: We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Business owners who wish to discriminate against anyone are bad at being business owners and should sell out and let someone else take a stab at it.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:15 pm
Oh, and if it’s a homosexual “wedding” ceremony than you guys are the Illinois “Family” Institute.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:17 pm
OMG 5 individual cases in five different states. What a nightmare!
The IFI, like ISRA and IPI, motivates their members, and drives fund raising, with talks of catastrophe.
I find it hard to believe they really buy their own schtick.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:19 pm
“Why wouldn’t proponents tolerate another person’s …right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage”?”
And why wouldn’t black people tolerate a lunch counter owner’s “right to decline” to serve them?
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:22 pm
ChicagoR -
Well said.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:22 pm
These cases almost make me feel sorry for these bigots…almost. If you want to run a business in Illinois, you should understand that you need to run it lawfully. Maybe you should thank the law for preventing you from acting like a mean-spirited discriminator.
Comment by Buster Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:25 pm
Could go back 40 years and just substitute “blacks” for “gays” in these complaints.
Give it up people. Once sexual orientation was added to IL civil rights act, there’s no argument for your side. It really is like a B&B complaining about having to give a room to a black couple. Of course no one would attempt such a refusal today. This issue is settled law. See the dang flowers to the gay folks, make some money, and get over it.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:27 pm
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Perhaps the business owners should read this Supreme Court decision. They may find it enlightening.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:27 pm
BTW, none of this helps Dillard when the “Conservative Summit” endorses him this weekend. He’ll officially be branded the candidate of the extreme right who can’t win in November.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:29 pm
You got a problem with it, Mr. Smith? Good. Those businesses have a problem with treating gay people fairly? Good. They deserve to be sued.
Discrimination is discrimination. Somebody’s religion might allow them to deny service to blacks, latinos, Irish, or Jews too, but the laws of this state and the US Constitution don’t.
Besides, it’s bad business to deny sales to people who want to buy your product.
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:29 pm
As a matter of principle, I agree with ChicagoR, but practically speaking, I’d love to see how many homophobic florists suddenly locate their moral compasses when they see how much money there is to be made on gay weddings.
Comment by Deana Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:30 pm
I’m for Dillard, but let’s just get Gay Marriage passed here and move on.
Comment by Senate Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:31 pm
ChicagoR — Exactly. There have been lots of lawsuits stemming from racial discrimination — does that make civil rights legislation a bad idea?
What if that Christian B&B didn’t want any Jews staying there? or if a Baptist B&B didn’t want any Catholics?
If you don’t want to serve people who have different lives and different views, then don’t open a storefront business.
And Mr. Smith — It probably doesn’t help your argument that the Oregon bakery agreed to do a solstice party cake for a local coven…
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:31 pm
Spot on walkinfool. They come up with four instances and none from Illinois. How do our courts handle the caseload.
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:35 pm
To me the greatest illustration of Dillards weaknesses have come in the time since his defeat. He backed perry, he’s moved strongly to the right on social issues-or at least made them more apparent. This is a guy showing that his biggest interest in this and priority is getting the next rung on the ladder. That to me is usually a real dealbreaker on a politician. You’re running around saying edgar-who’s spent the last 15 years trashing the party for holding these positions and then doing this. He could have made the conservative case in a constructive ideas based platform.
Comment by shore Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:35 pm
Can they put up a more comprehensive list of bed and breakfast owners who think it is still the middle ages? I sometimes go to bed and breakfasts and wouldn’t want to accidentally give the little trolls money.
Comment by Will Caskey Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:35 pm
I hear Catholics turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
My religion does not permit people to be cannibals.
Now, I only want to operate my business according to the dictates of my faith and I don’t want to be forced to celebrate something that is immoral.
I wonder if David E. Smith would help me keep Catholics out of my business.
*OK, I really don’t care about the religion of my clients, but you get the point. I wonder if David E. Smith does though.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:41 pm
I’m really sorry to hear that these business owners can’t use their “faith” to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.
Comment by Snucka Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:42 pm
Dillard must have really put out the panicky calls looking for some help. The real shame is that he won’t realize that this doesn’t help.
Comment by Just Saying Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:45 pm
One more note on this –
Dillard is getting a lot of support today from right wing groups.
Does he really think that is going to translate to support in the primary?
Dillard supported Obama. These groups would sooner officiate at a gay wedding than vote for the guy who supported Obama.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:46 pm
= In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “equality” or “tolerance.” =
Far beyond equality and tolerance?
Gee, I thought that all they wanted were flowers from a florist, a cake from a baker, or a bedroom from an innkeeper.
Comment by Arnold Ziffle Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:48 pm
It won’t help and how much credibility does Dillard lose in the blatant pandering?
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:49 pm
Thanks (IPI) for 4 examples of owner’s of businesses being fools. And yourself being foolish.
“In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “equality” or “tolerance.””
Yes, very far beyond. They don’t just want to be able to get married, they also want to have honeymoon suites, wedding cakes, floral arrangements, and photos. Talk about redefining marriage.
Comment by Timmeh Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:50 pm
I’m sure the Catholic Conference and Sen. Dillard feel great about this ringing endorsement.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?s=illinois+family+institute&submit=
I’m expecting the next release to be a KKK Imperial Grand Wizard agreeing with IFI agreeing with the Catholic Conference agreeing with Sen Dillard.
Comment by S Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:57 pm
I’m busy with other stuff right now, so go ahead and litigate….
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:58 pm
Back in the 40s, German prisoners of war in the South could eat lunch at the Woolworth’s counter, but black American soldiers could not.
The Curse of Ham and the Mark of Cain were the religious justification for that.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:59 pm
Our Illinois courts are obviously being overrun. Clearly this law was a mistake.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:00 pm
The basis for the comparison of homosexual “marriage” to interracial marriage is based on the fallacious comparison of homosexuality to race. Race is, of course, a lousy analogue for homosexuality. Race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no inherent connection to subjective feelings, desires, or volitional acts. Homosexuality, in contrast, is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases fluid, and is constituted centrally by subjective feelings, sexual desire, and volitional sexual acts.
Comment by Howell Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:04 pm
I think these businesses are not going far enough. Before they make cakes or provide flowers for weddings, they should require proof that these couples are fertile and intend to bear children, and that they will not use any artificial contraception. Also, that they will never wear any garment mingled of linen and woollen. And the corners of their beards should be intact (probably not a problem in Portland…)
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:08 pm
Back in the day, you could discriminate against those Papist Catholics. And the Christ-killer Jews.
As a matter of religious conscience, of course.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:08 pm
Howell, you’ve got nothing to back up that statement except ignorance.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:13 pm
Howell, while I disagree with you, try comparing legal protections for gays and those who have a civil union to legal protections for religious beliefs.
Religion is not nearly 100 percent hereditary. It’s actually a choice. Yet that choice is protected in hiring decisions, when securing public accommodations, etc. Your choice of religion cannot be used against you in those instances. In turn, however, you cannot use your religion against others. A Lutheran motel owner cannot refuse to rent a room to a Catholic, for instance.
So, even if you believe gayness is a choice, there’s still no logical reason to leave that choice unprotected under the law.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:15 pm
–Moreover, why would proponents of marriage redefinition seek to punish people of faith through litigation?–
Now look who’s the victim.
If you want to hold a pity party, Mr. Smith, the gays will cater it. And you’ll finally get a chance to see what class looks like up close.
Comment by David Ormsby Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:38 pm
Who asks whether clients are gay-averse Christians or refuses to serve such people? Not many. The only time it’s an issue is when people boycott businesses that discriminate against gays or others. People’s sexuality or religion should be a non-issue when doing business.
If we didn’t want to do business with people whose beliefs contradict our own, there wouldn’t be much business to do.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 6:14 pm
I guess the $5 question is… Does civil union legislation really have anything to do with these cases.
The law as I understand it recognizes a civil union between two people is this the recognition that leads to the folks in any of these situations to not provide a service? Does civil union law provide anyone an additional basis from which to sue from?
Don’t think so. I guess I could see the argument if it was made from an employment perspective, that is someone had to provide a benefit to a civil partner because of the law, wouldn’t agree with the concern but I could get the logic of the ‘will cause litigation’ argument.
Comment by Oneman Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 6:24 pm
Well, I personally wouldn’t deny services to someone based on race or sexual orientation. But I believe after all these years that everyone has a fundamental right to entertain whatever prejudices they darn well want to entertain, and act accordingly. And it is now, and never has been, any damn business of the government at any level unless their money is involved. The right to offend, by thought , word, or deed, is what Liberty is all about. For all of the good that may have come from the racial civil rights movement, the goverenment stepped way over the line when it began to dictate how a person should run his own private business. And it is now heading the same way in the sexual orientation arena.
Comment by Skirmisher Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 7:40 pm
–For all of the good that may have come from the racial civil rights movement, the goverenment stepped way over the line when it began to dictate how a person should run his own private business.–
You can’t be serious. See you in church.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 7:46 pm
Yes I had a similar conversation with a guy outside of St Pete’s Church. He brought up all the lawsuits from around the country. Very nefarious sounding. To which I pointed out that the Constitution gives people or groups of people the right to bring lawsuits in the courts.
All anecdotal evidence - means nothing.
Now, if the CCI would finally get back to the teachings of Christ, we’d all be better off. As it is, I pay attention to the Jesuits and the Paulists. They have the correct focus based upon this Catholic’s reading of scripture.
Comment by Matt Wos Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:24 pm
==Religion is not nearly 100 percent hereditary. It’s actually a choice. Yet that choice is protected in hiring decisions, when securing public accommodations, etc. Your choice of religion cannot be used against you in those instances. In turn, however, you cannot use your religion against others. A Lutheran motel owner cannot refuse to rent a room to a Catholic, for instance. ==
Rich, that may be my favorite paragraph you ever wrote. And you didn’t even say bite me.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:27 pm
I’ve really stepped back from this conversation today for a couple of reasons, primarily because I had better things to do, but also because, hey, why interrupt your opposition when they are embarrassing themselves?
Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, Robert Gilligan of the Catholic Conference of Illinois and David Smith of the Illinois Family Institute have all jumped to Kirk Dillard’s defense of Dillard’s statement that civil unions have been a “litigation nightmare.”
These are the people filing the law suits and/or defending the cases! And their defense of Dillard is doing nothing more than reminding everyone that they are Dillard’s allies!
If this is indeed a litigation nightmare, these are the people responsible. All of this hoopla might actually help Dillard in the primary, but it dooms his chances in a general election.
The only thing that could make this more fun is if Peter LaBarbera also sends his thoughts on the subject (assuming Skirmisher is not LaBarbera’s handle).
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:33 pm
Mr. Smith - while we’re pm the topic - I’m not quite sure what happened to the post Vatican II church many of us grew up in. Acceptance, tolerance, and love of neighbor. Social justice issues. If anything, CCI and IFI ought to be LESS concerned about what same sec couples do, and MORE concerned with how we as individuals (focusing on ourselves) have our faith strengthened and developed.
I’m not holding my breath, though for you and the groups mentioned. So be it. I had great Catholic schooling and can read the Bible as well as you and your group. And myself and many other like minded Catholics will continue to ignore the IFI and CCI.
Comment by Matt Wos Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:46 pm
Rich,
Illinois Family Institute agrees with the Islamic Conference of Illinois and Senator Kirk Dillard. Christian Marriage is proving to be a litigious nightmare! Just ask the Bed & Breakfast owners from Paxton, Illinois who only want to operate their business according to the dictates of their faith and not be forced to celebrate something they believe to immoral.
Here are just a few examples that prove just how litigious the marriage redefinition agenda is:
• Washington State is suing a Muslim florist who declined to provide floral arrangements for a Christian “wedding” ceremony. The state is threatening thousands of dollars in fines and a requirement that the elderly florist provide floral arrangements to any Christian couple that seeks her services.
• The Mulsim owners of an Oregon bakery were contacted by the Oregon Department of Justice and were told that they are being investigated because of a discrimination complaint that followed their refusal to violate their beliefs by providing a wedding cake for a Christian “wedding” ceremony.
• A Muslim owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii has been ordered to provide a room to any Christian couple that wants to stay there, thus violating her religious convictions.
• And in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the owner of Elane Photography declined to provide her skills and services for a Christian commitment, explaining that doing so would violate her conscience as a Muslim. As a result of a complaint being filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a fine of $6,600 was issued against this small business for discrimination based on “Religious orientation.”
There are many more cases like these, and many more will be coming down the litigation pike. In each of these cases Christian activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “equality” or “tolerance.” And they clearly demonstrate their lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinions.
Moreover, why would proponents of marriage redefinition seek to punish people of faith through litigation? Why wouldn’t proponents tolerate another person’s right to freely exercise their religious beliefs and an individual’s right of conscience, and their right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of Christian unions as “marriage”?
Sincerely,
Comment by 100 Miles West Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 8:04 am
I am so tired of religious leaders of all faiths and their assessment that only their particular faith should be held by all others.
Comment by georgeatt Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 9:48 am
Public accommodations laws were a nightmare for Lester Maddox. He had to keep blacks out of his restaurant with an ax handle.
Comment by AlphaBettor Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 9:49 am
Lawyers, who right these laws, just smile when the are passed. More dollars for trial lawyers. The courts continually get clogged up with these types of lawsuits. The rest of the world must view us as lawsuit crazy and just shake their heads.
Comment by Downstater Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 9:49 am
IFI forgot to mention this:
Greensboro, North Carolina, a suit was brought against a lunch counter located in the Woolworth’s store, because a waitress refused to serve them unless they drank the coffee they ordered while standing because the counter only served white customers.
That Civil Rights act was such a litigious nightmare. It forced bigots to actually treat people equally. The horror!
Comment by Jimbo Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 9:59 am
Much as these groups want to deny the argument, there is no logical distinction between prohibiting discrimination based on race and prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. As others have noted, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a litigious nightmare for racists. Big flipping deal.
Comment by tominchicago Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 10:07 am
So a business owner does not have the right to choose who they do business with? A customer can fire a business, why can’t a business fire a customer?
Comment by Dan S, a Cubs fan Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 10:57 am
Dan,
Because we ban discrimination.
We settled that for good around 1965.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 11:06 am
Dan - Yes, it was settled by Congress with overwhelming passage of the Civil Rights Act. I don’t seem recall similar national movement or federal legislation for same sex marriage.
Comment by Anon2 Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 11:24 am
Yes, the rumors of my death were greatly exaggerated.
To the point: the cases cited by IFI offer no defense of Senator Dillard.
These are routine anti-discrimination cases covered by the Human Rights Act which was expanded nearly a decade ago to prevent discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation.
That same florist would be sued in Illinois for discrimination in a public accomodation if she were a peace-loving hippie who refused service to a military veteran.
And even more pointedly, if the defenders of “traditional” marriage are concerned about our courts being clogged, their time would be better spent addressing the fact that half of all “traditional” marriages, sanctified by religious groups quite often, end up in Divorce Court.
thoughts?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 11:34 am
YDD, are you sure?
(775 ILCS 5/5-102.1)
Sec. 5-102.1. No Civil Rights Violation: Public Accommodations.
(a) It is not a civil rights violation for a medical, dental, or other health care professional or a private professional service provider such as a lawyer, accountant, or insurance agent to refer or refuse to treat or provide services to an individual in a protected class for any non-discriminatory reason if, in the normal course of his or her operations or business, the professional would for the same reason refer or refuse to treat or provide services to an individual who is not in the protected class of the individual who seeks or requires the same or similar treatment or services.
(b) With respect to a place of public accommodation defined in paragraph (11) of Section 5-101, the exercise of free speech, free expression, free exercise of religion or expression of religiously based views by any individual or group of individuals that is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or under Section 3 of Article I, or Section 4 of Article I, of the Illinois Constitution, shall not be a civil rights violation.
Comment by Jaded Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 11:43 am
I think they don’t understand that none of the 3 (numerous!) lawsuits are in Illinois.
Comment by Flan Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 12:05 pm
flan, the lawsuits might not have occurred in illinois, but the bigotry was…
Comment by bored now Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 1:25 pm