Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

“Not so fast”

Posted in:

Illinois

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 Illinoisâ€™ 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.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 2, 05 @ 3:57 am

Comments

I’m a bit confused. Ungaretti and Harris make this statement: “…principal legislative sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen(D-Chicago), has gone on record with her view that it bars all covered employers, including religious organizations…”

Cp. “a bill that, according to its sponsor, would ban churches from ‘discriminating’” Close parallel between U&H and IFI, nearly close enough to label it plagiarism.

Comment by Stephen Wednesday, Feb 2, 05 @ 10:15 am
Perhaps someone can explain why the religious rights of churches that WANT to perform same sex marriages aren’t infringed by the DOMA.

If a church WANTS to perform a same sex marriage (and trust me there are lots of churches that would do this) aren’t we infringing on their religious beliefs by telling them they can’t?

Ralph

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 2, 05 @ 11:55 am
I’m realy confused. I read the bill, and it does not make any change to the following, existing religious exclusion in the Human Rights Act:

(2) “Employer” does not include any religious corporation, association, educational institution, society, or nonâ€‘profit nursing institution conducted by and for those who rely upon treatment by prayer through spiritual means in accordance with the tenets of a recognized church or religious denomination with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, society or nonâ€‘profit nursing institution of its activities.

That’s the current law, and the employment provisions of the gay rights bill should be using this definition. Am I missing something about this debate?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 2, 05 @ 1:21 pm