# Illinois to churches: We'll interpret scripture for you.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-to-churches-well-interpret-scripture-for-you/286165>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [January 23, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-to-churches-well-interpret-scripture-for-you/286165 "2005-01-23T00:03:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-to-churches-well-interpret-scripture-for-you/286165/21 "2005-01-25T02:23:54Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> The anti-SSM laws are an attempt to _exclude_ American citizens from equal protection. The law in the OP is completely the opposite. It takes no rights or protections away from anyone but actually _expands_ them. The scolding of churches is not an attempt at enforcing any sort of religious code but only an exercise in free speech.

That’s really not entirely true. For example, anti-discrimination laws remove some of the rights of landlords and employers because they no longer have the same freedom to select their tenants and employees. Now, I don’t have much sympathy for bigots, but there _are_ going to be people who get sued because they didn’t rent to a gay person, or hire a gay person, even though that person’s sexual orientation wasn’t the reason.

On the whole, the tradeoff is worth making. I strongly support laws like the one in the OP. But it’s disingenuous to say that the law doesn’t remove _any_ rights or protections.

Also, I don’t think it’s appropriate for an elected official to give religious justification for a recently passed law. But in this case at least it’s a message of tolerance rather than one of hate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-to-churches-well-interpret-scripture-for-you/286165/22 "2005-01-26T02:38:23Z")

</div>

> [@Malodorous](#):
>
> I agree with your assesment, and note that the sort of sexism you mentioned isn’t exclusive to religious people, just as is the case with murder laws and “thou shalt not kill”. So anti-gay marriage laws don’t violate the establishment clause, as the sole motivation to enact them is not based purely on religious teachings. Which was my initial point.

But in that case, they discriminate on the basis of sex. Which is still unconstitutional. Ok so I’m not an expert on the US constitution, but if it isn’t unconstitutional, it should be.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\
**Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-to-churches-well-interpret-scripture-for-you/286165/23 "2005-01-26T02:46:18Z")

</div>

> [@kung fu lola](#):
>
> But in that case, they discriminate on the basis of sex. Which is still unconstitutional. Ok so I’m not an expert on the US constitution, but if it isn’t unconstitutional, it should be.

You just can’t violate someone’s voting rights based on sex, according to the constitution. Laws making sex a protected class in general are just run of the mill ordinary laws.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-to-churches-well-interpret-scripture-for-you/286165.md?page=1)