Here’s the link to the Ungaretti & Harris analysis of Illinois’ new gay rights law that I wrote about today in Capitol Fax.

Here, again, is the last paragraph written by the firm’s attorney Nicholas Anaclerio, which is now being used by the religious right to condemn the new law for allegedly forcing churches to hire and retain gays and lesbians:

“Thus, while adding another protected status to Illinois’ Human Rights Act, the measure may ultimately force courts to consider and balance its ban on sexual orientation discrimination with State and Federal constitutional safeguards of religious freedom.”

Go here and here to see how the anti-gay Illinois Family Institute uses Anaclerio’s analysis to tear into the new law as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of religious institutions. (And, yes, it’s “anti-gay” not “anti gay rights” because IFI routinely uses terribly harsh language to describe homosexuals and homosexuality.)

By signing into law SB 3186-a bill that, according to its sponsor, would ban churches from ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals-Gov. Blagojevich is signing away the First Amendment freedoms of churches and anyone who disagrees with homosexuality, Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera said today

You can also go here to see a bunch of links to stories, blogs, etc. that are using Anaclerio’s analysis to bash the gay rights law.

And since this thing is exploding all over the Internet, and because Anaclerio’s analysis is being misused so much, I thought I’d break my usual rule and provide a quote from today’s subscription-only edition:

“I didn’t then and I don’t now take a position about whether it does affect the abridgment of religious liberties.” Anaclerio also said he is not claiming that the law is an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberties. “That’s not what I said. And I wouldn’t have said that without a whole lot more study of it.”

“My point was the controversy arose over whether there was an express exemption (in the legislation),” Anaclerio said, “There are arguments that can be fashioned that exemptions can apply… and I did not purport to speak globally about that.”

Subscribers already know that there’s much more to today’s story which refutes the religious right’s contention that the law abridges their churches’ freedoms.