13.4 F
Chicago
Monday, January 30, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsReligious freedom ruling could stifle Illinois' "public accommodation" law

Religious freedom ruling could stifle Illinois’ “public accommodation” law

Date:

spot_img

Cbsn-fusion-supreme-court-denies-gop-request-to-block-pennsylvania-gerrymandering-decision-thumbnail-1496435-640x360

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the free religious exercise case in which the US Supreme Court sided with a Christian baker, says the decision could have an effect on Illinois as a state whose civil rights law mentions "sexual orientation," "gender Identity" and "public accommodation."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a historic case that protects the right to free exercise of religion against the LGBT “sexual orientation” law that was being used to force a Christian baker to violate his conscience. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the neutrality required by the First Amendment by making disparaging comments against Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs regarding same-sex “marriage.” Jack Philips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to use his artistic talents and expression to promote a same-sex ceremony. 

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in this case defending Jack Philips’ right to freedom of expression. Though the Court focused on the explicit hostility exhibited by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in this specific instance, this significant decision will have a wide impact regarding the clash between free speech and the LGBT agenda, including laws that add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Twenty-one states have “public accommodations” laws that include one or both phrases. They include California and six other states in the West, Illinois and three other states in the upper Midwest, and 10 states on the East Coast from Maryland to Maine. No state in the South or on the Great Plains has such a law.

“This is a huge victory for the religious rights private citizens,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “People should not be forced to speak a message that violates their conscience. Just as any person or business should have the right to refuse to promote a KKK event, in the same way no one should be forced to promote a same-sex ceremony that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. A painter can refuse to paint hate, nudity or the Nazi symbol. A photographer or moviemaker can refuse to film offensive content. A person should be free to refuse to be used as a mouthpiece for an objectionable message. Today’s ruling protects that inalienable right to conscience,” said Staver.

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

4 COMMENTS

  1. A civil rights statute is subservient to constitution law. No govt in the US can override constitution law with a
    civil rights statute. Constitution law is supreme, remember there is a rigorous procedure for amending a constitution, common sense should tell everyone a statute CANNOT AMENDMENT OR WATER DOWN A CONSTITUTION’S LAW.
    That is basic law 101…. Rule of Law must be obeyed

  2. No, this isn’t really true. This ruling was decided on fairly narrow grounds that, basically, the bigoted Baker wasn’t treated fairly by the commission. There was no ruling affirming the right a bakery or lunch counter to turn away members of a protected class.

  3. You like, the baker isn’t bigoted, he offered to sell the homo couple a cake, just not a wedding cake. The baker opposed their same-sex marriage sin. The baker refused to be forced to sin by being part of the homo couple’s sin.
    You dictatorial leftists are just like Hitler’s left-wing Nazis…. they were Christianity haters who denied people the right not to be forced to believe same-sex marriage is good. To Christians same-sex marriage not only violates the law of nature, it is a sin and perverted.
    The Bible says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17)
    Sin is a personal act. We have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
    – by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
    – by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
    – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
    – by protecting evil-doers.
    Sin is disobedience to God’s word and homosexuals and govt cannot force Christians to support sin in anyway. That my friends is the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
    You can’t rewrite the Bible or ignore parts a dictatorial govt may not like to suit them. To be a true Christian you must live Biblically and you must have faithful obedience to God’s word. So basically pritzker, go pound sand homos.