Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s numbers are lousy
Next Post: Cross voted for it before he was against it
Posted in:
* Buzzfeed…
A Republican state senator in Illinois introduced legislation Tuesday to repeal the state’s new marriage equality law, which takes effect this June.
But with a Senate and House controlled by Democrats — who just voted in favor of marriage equality in November — and a governor who pressed for equal marriage rights in the state, advocates say Sen. Kyle McCarter is simply playing to his base of conservative Republicans.
McCarter introduced Senate Bill 2637 to repeal the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, which passed last fall, and amend the state’s marriage statute to redefine marriage as between one man and one woman. […]
“This is just politics,” said Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda, an LGBT rights group. “It’s an election year in Illinois and whenever that happens there’s always legislators who introduce legislation that will really go nowhere, but appeals to their base and I think that’s exactly what he’s done here.”
McCarter is McCarter. None of his Senate bills passed the Senate last year. That one ain’t gonna pass, either.
Personally, I really like the guy. I mean it. He’s a whole lot different back in the district than he is in Springfield. He listens, is considerate and can even be humble - qualities he doesn’t often display at the Statehouse, which is too bad, if you ask me.
* Along the same vein, the Champaign News-Gazette recently profiled a bed-and-breakfast near Paxton which is doing banner business since it was hit with a civil rights complaint for refusing to host a civil union ceremony. The owner says the same ban will apply to gay marriages, and he wants some legal protection…
State Rep. Josh Harms, R-Watseka, is among the lawmakers pushing for a change.
Harms said he voted last year against the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act because, among other reasons, “businesses will be forced to host, cater or otherwise serve gay weddings, even if their religion forbids it.”
Harms said he had planned to draft legislation to protect “the rights of those individuals and businesses that have religious objections to gay weddings,” but he has since narrowed the focus of the proposed legislation. Harms said he now is working to draft a bill that would expand the law to “protect all entities controlled by the church” — specifically, private schools affiliated with churches. […]
“I think (the legislation protecting business owners) will be a hard sell,” Harms noted. “I’ve been talking to some other reps about carrying the other one that will give a personal objection exemption (to business owners). But I think it will be very hard to get through (into law).”
When even Josh Harms won’t touch the issue, you know it’s radioactive.
* Sen. Jason Barickman, who voted for gay marriage, says he might consider supporting Harms’ legislation tightening up language on religious institutions, but the private business stuff will not get his backing…
“As far as the bed-and-breakfast goes, their ability to turn away same-sex couples is prohibited by the Human Rights Act,” Barickman said. “They are unable to say ‘no’ to a same-sex couple not because of the same-sex marriage law that just passed, but because of the anti-discrimination law that passed long before Rep. Harms and myself were in the legislature.”
Exactly right.
* Also from the News-Gazette story…
The TimberCreek website lists Walder’s position against same-sex marriages and civil unions.
“If you go to http://www.timbercreekbb.com/history, towards the bottom of the page you will find what I believe and how I look at the issue. It is posted there for the world to see,” Walder said.
* From the bottom of the business’ “history” page…
America was built upon a foundation of religious liberty and Judeo Christian principles. This heritage is engraved in federal buildings all over our Nation’s Capitol. It is printed on our money. It is enshrined in the United States Constitution which guarantees the freedom of religious expression. But now it is under assault by well-funded homosexual activists who demand we surrender religious liberty to their new definition of marriage. President Obama has been deceived into embracing this far-left agenda. Even IL Governor Quinn is marching down this same path of perversion. As Christians, we should absolutely love individuals ensnared in homosexuality, but we should not and cannot condone any part of it because the Bible condemns it. The Creator of the Universe is no one to defy.
Homosexuality is a behavioral choice which has been historically viewed as immoral, sinful, and an abomination to God in Judeo Christian belief for over 6,000 years. This lifestyle can be adopted and abandoned. Yet it is being championed as equal to immutable human characteristics such as race, color, gender, creed, age, and national origin. It uses anti-discrimination laws as a bully club when dissenting Americans disagree with men trying to marry men, women marrying women, men changing to women, and women changing to men. It basically says that God is confused by marriage, family, and sexuality and that we need to correct his mistakes.
We politely disagree. God is not confused. His Word clearly illustrates and declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. It also labels homosexuality as an abominable sin throughout the Old and New Testaments. God’s Word is the ultimate authority, infallible, and unchanging. It is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His Word cannot be changed by a vote of the Illinois General Assembly when it passed the Civil Unions Act or the Gay Marriage Bill. Marriage is only appropriate God’s way. Sexuality is only appropriate God’s way.
Consequently, we cannot host civil unions or gay marriages at TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast. It is not an issue of fairness or equality, but an issue of right and wrong. We cannot be part of what God condemns. Be assured that we are not lawless, hateful, judgmental, bigoted, or activists by any definition. We did not initiate the present controversy. We are not the ones who voted to change the 6,000 year-old definition of marriage. We are just small business owners trying to be consistent in following God’s Word and living it out practically in our lives. And we are not alone.
Um, you call gay marriage a “path of perversion,” an “abomination” and a “bully club” against dissenters and then you say you “politely disagree” with its backers?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 9:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s numbers are lousy
Next Post: Cross voted for it before he was against it
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
McCarter is McCarter is right.
I actually think McCarter can’t help himself. While in the district, there are plenty of people to keep him grounded and in check. In Springfield, having qualities that keep him grounded, that doesn’t get McCarter press on a much bigger stage.
McCarter is willing to be seen as he is in Springfield, with the duality of being who he is where he is known best.
Not “two-faced” at all. McCarter wants a place on a bigger stage, while keeping it “real” back home in the district.
I call it more pandering than two faced, but disappointing all the same.
Being thoughtful, should not be based on your current location and/or audience. Just saying.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:02 am
Here is a serious question — I understand that it is illegal to refuse to serve anyone based on race, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But what are the limits on the signage, etc., a business can display? I mean, I am guessing a business could solve this “problem” by putting up lots of posters, etc., proclaiming their position on this issue. On the other hand, would there be any legal ramifications if a business displayed, say, Nazi paraphernalia?
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:04 am
If you don’t want to operate a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone, then don’t open a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone.
Why is that so hard for people to understand? You can’t discriminate who you will serve in your business because of your non-business related and instead personal beliefs.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:08 am
== If you don’t want to operate a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone, then don’t open a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone. ==
Amen.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:12 am
Of course they also turn away those who were previously divorced, and serve only kosher food.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:15 am
This type of worldview is nothing new- bigots have used their religious beliefs to discriminate against people who are different than themselves for as long as their has been organized religion. They must be aiming for the “hate homosexuals for being homosexuals” vacationing crowd. I am not gay but I wouldn’t want to share the “breakfast” portion of a stay at a bed and breakfast with people like that anyway…
Comment by Roadiepig Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:19 am
What does it mean if your cause is lost and you maintain that victory is just around the corner?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:22 am
Same old fire and brimstone to be used as fodder for the party of NO. Sometimes its hard to believe
we live in the 21st Century.
The GOP loves to belittle gays, the poor, the halt and the lame. They think that only God talks to is them.
Kyle McCarter would be the a great leader at the Salem trial of witches.
Comment by mokenavince Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:23 am
I mean, I have stayed in “Christian” B&Bs that told me they prefer not to welcome unmarried hetero couples, as well. I also have had the issue of making a reservation for friends at a local B&B, only to have them weirded out by the masses of Catholic artwork on the walls.
Again, it’s a public accommodation, so they can’t legally tell people to stay home. Just wondering what the rules are for people who are renting out rooms in their homes.
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:24 am
===Of course they also turn away those who were previously divorced, and serve only kosher food. ===
In the old days, hotels and B&Bs wouldn’t rent rooms to unmarried folks.
So, I’m kinda wondering what would happen if a single guy showed up with his single girlfriend and asked for a room.
Not that I’m willing to attempt this myself, mind you. Just wondering.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:26 am
==What does it mean if your cause is lost and you maintain that victory is just around the corner?==
Dupage Dan: Why don’t you ask a pro-lifer?
Comment by Nonplussed Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:28 am
==Um, you call gay marriage a “path of perversion,” an “abomination” and a “bully club” against dissenters and then you say you “politely disagree” with its backers? ==
If you talk about God a lot and don’t swear or raise your voice, it’s automatically polite, dontcha know.
Comment by TooManyJens Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:30 am
The “Springfield” McCarter narrative, along with the 4-62 voting record on SSM shows My Party quite intolerant to that specific Bill, and I do, really, understand, how easy it is to see My Party’s GA members in a light of being intolerant, especially with a voting record to point to as evidence.
I get it. I give those making that case everything. I, myself, have dinged then often too.
My Party needs to understand that being the “No” parent to the Dems “Yes” parent, is a losing argument in achieving a plurality.
Thoughtful “No”s, and accepting “Yes”s as still members of My Party will go a long way from a “Springfield” McCarter’s attempt to make any/all social issues a “must be” position to be held to be accepted.
My Party is still learning, but I hope those wishing the ILGOP would be more open-minded, I hope they are open-minded enough to know not all Republicans feel the same on everything.
We all will keep trying.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:33 am
Another example of the tyranny of liberalism. An owner should be able to serve whom he wants. Period. I cant wait until common sense comes back, and you guys are back in the wilderness. It starts this November.
Comment by warhed Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:35 am
This place is in Paxton people, hardly a top destination for, well, anyone. This place has managed to get itself national attention though, and probably has become a huge hit with like-minded folks. I suppose it’s shrewd marketing for them to proudly and loudly flout the Illinois Human Rights Act, but whatever. It’s not like this leaves a void for same-sex couples, who have no where else to turn. It’s still illegal and wrong, but it’s Paxton. Note to self: just keep driving to Champaign, it’s only another half hour down the road.
We’re giving these bigots way too much attention. Pull their license and let them sue.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:36 am
So how does a place of business know if you are married? Do they ask for the marriage license or do you just say you are married?
All of this is too silly….people are confusing their freedoms to deny other persons their freedoms….
If a business is opposed to mixed marriages (mixed by race, faith etc) would they also deny services to these persons. If a business owner does not believe in racial equality can they deny business? I am confident the answer is no, so what is the difference.
This is not a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” issue, but rather a denial of who a person is by birth.
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:37 am
==If you don’t want to operate a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone, then don’t open a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone.
Why is that so hard for people to understand? You can’t discriminate who you will serve in your business because of your non-business related and instead personal beliefs.==
I agree and I should be able to carry my concealed handgun into any one of these businesses.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:40 am
It’s too late to ask, but I’ll bet Hiroo Onoda knew the answer.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:40 am
“I agree and I should be able to carry my concealed handgun into any one of these businesses.”
Of course, Todd!
Your secreted gun is the moral equivalent of Martin Luther King, Jr.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:46 am
“So, I’m kinda wondering what would happen if a single guy showed up with his single girlfriend and asked for a room. Not that I’m willing to attempt this myself, mind you. Just wondering.”
As a recently divorced, single male, I am totally willing to do this… just need a free night when I don’t have the kids. And a day off.
And.. oh yeah. One more thing, I almost forgot. A single girlfriend. So it may be a while!
Comment by Shark Sandwich Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:48 am
===So how does a place of business know if you are married? ===
They sometimes used to ask for a marriage license or to see a wedding ring. Not that I would know about such things, of course.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:51 am
===An owner should be able to serve whom he wants. Period.===
So, if it was up to you, racist restaurant owners could refuse service to black people?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:53 am
So I get the whole selective reading of the bible. Seen that forever. But how can they be sure nobody is violating one of the actual ten commandments: Thou shall not commit adultery. Seems to me that it’s a way bigger deal from God’s perspective. It’s one of the BIG TEN afterall.
Hypocrites.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:53 am
I have never once been asked to show my marriage license. I’m kind of annoyed…
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:54 am
I’m glad you brought that up Soccermom. I’ve been meaning to ask to see your marriage license for quite some time…but first I’d need to actually meet your spouse.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 10:57 am
Sen Barickmans comments are mute because while he’s right in that these businesses had to follow the Human Rights Act. However, civil unions and now gay marriages weren’t recognized then so the B&B didn’t even have these types of reception requests. Obviously things have changed now.
Comment by just saying Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 11:01 am
Business also used to turn away mixed race married couples; why can’t these people understand turing away legally married gays is the same thing?
I’d like to start a business that refused service to anti-gay zealots. But, they would argue their right to bigotry isn’t a basis for discrimination, right?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 11:04 am
Unless the innkeeper is conducting a bed check, how does he know what is going on in a hotel room? A public wedding reception might be different.
Over the holidays, I finally caught the cable miniseries “John Adams.” It was an impressive production that included actors playing such figures as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and both John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams.
I mention this only because the series really brought home the point that the Founders really believed that “Natural Law” arguments underscored the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both Adams stated that our form of government rested upon Christian morality that would be out of step with the current redefinition of civil rights, so I guess most of our Founders would be ranked as “anti-gay zealots.” Of course, prior to the Sixties such conduct was criminal.
Comment by Upon Further Review Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 11:25 am
==Of course, prior to the Sixties such conduct was criminal.==
@UFR,
So was interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. So, what’s your point?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 11:31 am
===I guess most of our Founders would be ranked as “anti-gay zealots.”===
Many of them would also be “ranked as slave-holders.”
Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 11:31 am
Meh, this place is pulling a “Duck Dynasty.” It’s good for business.
Create a phony “controversy” that appeals to a narrow segment of the market. Own that segment of the market.
“Duck Dynasty” and A&E made a fortune right before Christmas selling their branded junk after the “controversy” erupted.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 11:52 am
without launching into a historical discourse, I would just point out that the opsition to womens rights and rights for minorities were often based on religious arguments that recognizing “those” people went against the religious beleif of the objector.
if we accept the right to discirminate if its based on a religious argument then we are back to good old fashioned discirmination against everyone. While a bit of a simplification, the KKK burned crosses to reflect the relgious beleif that minorites were inferior and should have no rights.
Same religious speel, different target grp.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:02 pm
=== I guess most of our Founders would be ranked as “anti-gay zealots.” Of course, prior to the Sixties such conduct was criminal. ===
Many of them were also opposed to extending the franchise outside of non-wealthy white males.
Related-speaking as a historian, don’t excessively venerate the founding generation. They got a decent number of things right, but they also got some things horribly wrong and were operating under a worldview that at times would be greatly backwards.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:02 pm
As to “Judeo-Christian principles,” from my reading, the founders weren’t too down on the “Judeo” part.
Some of them weren’t too cool with the Christian aspect as well, especially as it applied to Catholics.
It’s a weird phrase, anyway. Judaism considers Jesus a false prophet, while Christians consider him the son of God.
Muslims at least consider Jesus a prophet of God. Perhaps “Islamic-Christian principles” is more accurate. Everyone cool with that?
It’s worth noting that in the evangelicals’ interpretation of Revelations, it doesn’t end to well for the Jews. Or the great majority of humanity, for that matter.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:03 pm
-Your secreted gun is the moral equivalent of Martin Luther King, Jr.-
And just how is gay marriage morally equivalent to the work of Dr. King ?
Comment by countyline Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:11 pm
Backwards world view? Have you ever heard of the criticisms of historians who condemn historical figures by judging them according to politically correct doctrine of “presentism?”
Fair interpretations examine such persons according to the society in which they lived rather than applying contemporary standards to the past. A “presentist” historian would damn Lincoln for being backwards. Our Founders were far ahead of the pack and their work still merits respect in terms of the Constitution.
Governor Andrew Cuomo has his supporters here. If the census reports are any indicator, many people are voting with their feet as they exit your Blue State utopias. Who are you going to tax when all of the worker bees are gone?
Comment by Upon Further Review Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:22 pm
== And just how is gay marriage morally equivalent to the work of Dr. King ===
Well Dr. King did believe that people should only be judged on their individual character, not a group classification.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:46 pm
==If you don’t want to operate a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone, then don’t open a business of public accommodation that is open to everyone.==
And therein lies the solution…take the club private and sell memberships with criteria that exclude those that you don’t want to serve.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:46 pm
===Fair interpretations examine such persons according to the society in which they lived rather than applying contemporary standards to the past===
OK fine, I’m not entirely sure that generation is that much more forward-thinking than their European contemporaries.
Sure, we didn’t set up a monarchy with patents of nobility, but the British didn’t have a divine rights monarchy either at this time-Britain had been a constitutional monarchy since 1689. Similarly the bicameral legislature and limited franchise were also cribbed from the British.
That group compensated for the lack of a monarchy by creating a stronger, separated executive branch for our system, although please remember that the future first President for this Constitution (and that was the thought at the time) was leading the Constitutional Convention, which probably helps explain why you have a strong, separated executive branch. (See also “conflict of interest”)
Granted, this is understandable because that generation primarily consisted of wealthy landowners of British decent, only without patents of nobility because colonists don’t get those. Work with what you know.
——————————————-
That’s not to say they didn’t get a lot of things right-they did. They also were fairly lucky. But they also got a decent number of things wrong, most significantly slavery. Ultimately they were fallible men working with what they knew and certainly not guided by divine providence. So don’t venerate them more than you would any other man.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 12:57 pm
CollegeStudent, are you saying we need to stop using Phrenology to determine who can vote and is protected by our laws? but how will we segregate and know who the wrong people are without it?
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 1:10 pm
“Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.”
1 Peter 4:9
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 1:11 pm
== I cant wait until common sense comes back,==
Me either. The common sense to realize this issue is dead and the longer these guys keep harping on it the worse they make themselves look. Most Republicans want the issue to go away because the longer they keep harping on it the longer the banner of intolerance is wrapped around their neck.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 1:13 pm
==I agree and I should be able to carry my concealed handgun into any one of these businesses.=
Not even remotely comparable to the issue of serving gay people.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 1:18 pm
Anyone who has spent more than a couple hours in Paxton wouldn’t be surprised by this.
As noted above, 30 minutes to the ‘Paign.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 1:37 pm
@College Student:
Someday, you ought to read the Illinois Constitutions of 1818 and 1848 — Illinois was never a slave state, but minorities were decidedly second class citizens here too. The documents contain much more explicit language on the composition of the militia and religious freedoms too.
Apologies for the digressions.
I suppose some would call for a boycott of the Timbercreek business, but that is exactly what the owner wants.
Comment by Upon Further Review Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 2:10 pm
===Illinois was never a slave state===
Correct, but slavery was allowed. French settlers were allowed to keep their slaves. And the state government itself received much of its revenues from a salt works in Saline County, which was manned by slaves.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 2:23 pm
=== ===Illinois was never a slave state===
Correct, but slavery was allowed. French settlers were allowed to keep their slaves. And the state government itself received much of its revenues from a salt works in Saline County, which was manned by slaves. ===
Don’t even need to bring in the French, Dred Scott based his case for freedom on the fact that his master (who was in the army) lived in Illinois and Minnesota with Scott while he kept Scott enslaved.
Comment by CollegeStudent Wednesday, Jan 22, 14 @ 2:35 pm