Today’s quote
Thursday, Oct 10, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* After the Illinois Restaurant Association endorsed the gay marriage bill, Illinois Review went searching for a response…
David Smith of the Illinois Family Institute told Illinois Review the Chicago-based IMA [sic] doesn’t respresent all the restaurants in the state.
“The bill to redefine marriage would force restaurant owners to surrender their First Amendment right to freely exercise their faith in order to keep their businesses,” he noted.
“Restaurant owners in Illinois should be free to live, work, and operate a business according to their beliefs. It’s one of the principles on which this country was founded. People who oppose other people’s freedom of conscience really want to remove that freedom.”
Discuss.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 2:37 pm:
Can’t IFI just debate the issue without lying? Current anti-discrimination laws prevent restaurant owners from discriminating against gay people. If they refuse service to a gay civil union party today, they are violating the law. The marriage equality bill changes nothing.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 2:39 pm:
I have no idea what David Smith is talking about.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
Word, he probably wants to reserve the right to not include “gay marriage” on the menu.
- Center - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 2:51 pm:
I think the Restaurant Assn. knows more about their business than Smith.
- zatoichi - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
“Restaurant owners in Illinois should be free to live, work, and operate a business according to their beliefs.”
They really wanted to phrase it like that? There must be a shortage of history majors working there. They must be talking about kicking big people from the buffet line.
I do not recall ever being asked by any restaurant owner about my marriage status, who I was eating with, or who I sat next to as long as the bill was paid. So what is being surrendered? I do recall meeting the police at 4:00am at a Denny’s a couple of times, but it’s kinda vague.
- Responsa - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
Anybody on a mission who tries hard enough and long enough can always find some individual who will say exactly what it is that they want to hear and will enjoy being quoted about it. Nuff said.
- OldSmoky2 - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
I fail to see the basis for this assertion by Smith but, nonetheless, it does bring to mind that passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it difficult for some owners of lunch counters “to operate a business according to their beliefs.”
- walkinfool - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:10 pm:
David needs to go back to high school civics class. And to read some original sources on our Constitution. What he is saying about the First Amendment is simply nonsense.
- Snucka - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:12 pm:
Non-discrimination laws do not generally include an exception for instances in which a business owner’s conscience is offended.
- phocion - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:15 pm:
“Restaurant owners in Illinois should be free to live, work, and operate a business according to their beliefs.”
That’s not what the Supreme Court says. In the seminal 1964 Katenbach v. McClung case, the Court held that Congress acted within its power to protect interstate commerce in extending coverage of Title II of the Civil Rights Act to restaurants serving food moving in interstate commerce. Congress had had ample basis to conclude that discrimination based on race by such restaurants burdens interstate trade.
Furthermore, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court found that the Act was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce in prohibiting hotels from discriminating against customer based on race.
Restaurants can operate according to their beliefs, as long as they don’t discriminate.
- Past the Rule of 85 - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:18 pm:
Does that mean he would support my right to ban religious zealots?
- Raymond - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:18 pm:
=== Restaurant owners in Illinois should be free to live, work, and operate a business according to their beliefs ===
Because the free exercise of religion absolutely requires the freedom to discriminate against others whose beliefs don’t match your own.
I so look forward to watching them lose.
- Baxter - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:21 pm:
If Smith is speaking of restaurants who would be forced to cater a reception then OK. However, if he is talking about just serving someone in their establishment then as someone who opposes the current same sex marriage proposal I must admit Smith is off base.
The world is full of sinners but that doesn’t mean we should not do business with them. I do however oppose making restaurants participate in the sin, if thats what they believe it is.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:27 pm:
From the IFI website regarding their upcoming “Defend Marriage” day at the Capitol:
–PLEASE PRAY that God will continue to hold back this bill.–
With that kind of clout, you really don’t need to lobby the GA too much.
But when the day comes that gay marriage is the law in Illinois, I trust that IFI members will joyfully accept God’s answer to their prayers.
- MrJM - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:44 pm:
- Realist - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:50 pm:
Well, that was fairly incoherent. What IS he trying to say?
- Anon - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
As long as they don’t discriminate against soon to be impoverished retired teachers and state workers. Would you like fries with that?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
–1) And I suppose the Illinois Family Institute represents all families in the state?–
Dude, when you stick the knife in, I bet they don’t even feel it, lol.
- PolPal56 - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:54 pm:
Sorry, that was PolPal56 - forgot to change my nick on my phone (posting while at a conference table during a break in the action - better than staring at the dude opposite me).
- Just Me - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:08 pm:
As I’ve said before, businesses are not religious institutions. Businesses are places of public accommodation. If a business owner does not want to provide a good or service to the general public, then they should not open a business that provides a good or service to the general public.
- Montrose - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:15 pm:
*Restaurant owners in Illinois should be free to live, work, and operate a business according to their beliefs. It’s one of the principles on which this country was founded. People who oppose other people’s freedom of conscience really want to remove that freedom.*
The KKK’s chain of smoothie shops fully endorse this statement.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:19 pm:
Like I said earlier, game over. When you start spouting ridiculous (and false) comments like this, I’m assuming you’re throwing yourself under the bus.
- Old Timer - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
“Restaurant owners in Illinois should be free to live, work, and operate a business according to their beliefs. It’s one of the principles on which this country was founded”. Then why in the hell can’t they allow smoking in them??????
- TJ - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:25 pm:
Someone should remind Mr. Smith that the IFI doesn’t represent all families, Christians, or even blowhards in the state of Illinois either.
They’re doing a darn fine job representing the blowhards, though.
- Pete - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:59 pm:
- Old Timer - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
Then why in the hell can’t they allow smoking in them??????
Has the state smoking ban been challenged in court?
Remember in Illinois we pass unconstitutional laws all the time….
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 5:13 pm:
The first time I get a Menu with a “Litmus Test” attached to it, that will be the last time I go to that restaurant.
Just saying …
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 5:22 pm:
People who oppose other people’s freedom to hold slaves are really enslaving them. Black is white, night is day. What else is new?
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 9:21 pm:
Anybody on a mission who tries hard enough and long enough can always find some individual who will say exactly what it is that they want to hear and will enjoy being quoted about it”
That’s very true. But I wouldn’t classify running to the IFI for an anti-gay comment as exactly a long and arduous work of journalism. That’s pretty much the first place they look.
- Mama - Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 9:32 pm:
They stand to lose a lot of business since gay folks like to go out to eat!
- Joe M - Friday, Oct 11, 13 @ 9:04 am:
It sounds like Mr. Smith is still living in the pre-1960 Woolworth civil rights lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro, NC.
- Blue bird - Friday, Oct 11, 13 @ 9:21 am:
The IFI doesn’t represent all families.
- Howell - Friday, Oct 11, 13 @ 4:02 pm:
Certainly, the IMA doesn’t represent the religious and political views of all restaurants in Illinois.