Aren't there already laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender? (Or did they exempt churches?) I don't see how those laws have been interpreted to force churches to hire female pastors. What's the difference here?

Chruches should be exempt in hiring for leadership positions that significantly relate to spiritual leadership and formation. Churches should not necessarily be free to refuse to hire homosexual janitors, treasurers, etc., perhaps.

Churches are definitely exempt from all of that, since the Free Expression of Religion trumps the state law (there was a Utah case about this in the SC). Personally, I'm for prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, but definitely not in the church context. If a church wants to be closed-minded (IMO...YMMV), that's it's own God-_______ed (FITB depending on your views) business.

I think you're right Steve, but wasn't the Utah case about equal access to school facilties? The one I'm thinking of is East High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Board of Education. Is that the one you are? It's not directly on point, but I think it'd still apply to this state law, as you say.

What did civil rights used to mean as a descriptive term. Ans. They are rights against the government. What does the term now mean?

It has always been my understanding that if a certain trait is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR), then the hiring body can restrict its hiring pool accordingly.

I think your concern is overblow. Its similar to making a big deal out of the guy who wanted to be a Hooters waitress, and so he sued Hooters.

Most people won't become Pastors at a church that doesn't accept them just because the law may now allow it.

I do hope that's sarcasm John. If you're serious you obviously have lived under a rock for the past decade concerning the Catholic church, Episcopalians, Methodists, and just about ever other denomination. . . all of which have had rather high profile (and numerous low profile) challenges to church bans on homosexual clergy by homosexuals who wish to fill those roles.

The United Methodist Church does officially ordain and appoint celibate homosexuals to be clergy, as the church doesn't consider homosexual orientation to be sinful.

This just puts the onus on the Church to go to court, and they'll doubtlessly get all kinds of good publicity out of it (that's what they'll think, anyway). Everyone wins.

Absurd. This is just the beginning of state-imposed "tolerance." Good post Josh.

Absurd. This is just the beginning of state-imposed "tolerance." Good post Josh.

I believe that began with the end of segregation, but I could be mistaken.

I believe that began with the end of segregation, but I could be mistaken.

Concerning the church, you are wrong. And let's be clear on the definition of the word, "tolerance." When the state forces a church to accept sin in the face of their own Biblical views, they call it "tolerance." I call it facism and it's just the beginning.

See the Liberal party for further clarification.

Concerning the church perhaps, as I still wouldnt take a black friend to a Southern Baptist event, but when it comes to employement I'll stick with the end of segregation. Although you could argue other starting points.

When someone actually files a lawsuit that has a chance of winning to force a church to hire a gay or female member of the clergy I would be outraged right along with you.

The Alliance Defense Fund seems to think that the is an amendment to an existing law and the amendment while adding sexual orientation DOES NOT remove the basic exclusion for churches. I've posted links to their press releases at my site.

Laws such as this one in Illinois would not cause a problem in a biblically structured and regulated church, in which all of the unbiblical trappings of institutionalized religion have been abandoned.

As long as so-called Christians make their "churches" into business organizations by erecting and maintaining buildings and accommodations for full public access, incorporating themselves with the secular state, filing with the IRS for tax exempt status, and insisting on maintaining a permanent, full-time "staff" of career "clergy" and other employees, then they will have to bear the consequences of regulation and oversight by heathen governments, which will only become more oppressive and demand more concessions as time goes by (you just wait and see, if you don't believe it).