Illinois Requires Religious Organizations to Hire Pro-Abortion Employees

​Imagine you’re a barber. Your professional mission is to cut hair and make people look good. In walks Chewbacca, the Wookiee from Star Wars, looking for a job. Chewbacca never has had his hair cut. Sure, he’s a good space pilot, but he’s unkempt and ungroomed. Heck, Chewbacca doesn’t even believe in grooming – it’s not part of the Wookiee lifestyle. Hiring Chewbacca as a barber would reflect poorly on your business. It might even undermine your whole mission, because Chewbacca actively advocates against haircuts. Yet, if you don’t hire this anti-grooming, 8-foot canine, the government’s going to come after you.
 
Sounds ridiculous, right? That’s not too far from what’s actually happening in Illinois.
 
Two weeks ago, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging a state law that forces religious organizations to hire employees who disagree with – or act in conflict with – those organizations’ deeply held religious beliefs.
 
The Illinois Human Rights Act, as amended in 2024, prohibits employers from refusing to hire employees based on their reproductive decisions. Fair enough. That law includes a religious exemption, but the state attorney general has made the argument that such an exemption does not permit discrimination in hiring “even if such discrimination is consistent with (or mandated by) religious tenets.”
 
The plaintiff, the Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford, is a Christian organization that “affirms, proclaims, and strives to live out Christian beliefs about the dignity of human life and the nature of marriage by sharing the Gospel, promoting Christian beliefs on reproduction, opposing abortion, and providing free resources.” 
 
Similarly, the Diocese of Springfield, also a plaintiff, “affirms, proclaims, and strives to live out the teachings of the Catholic Church, including indispensable teachings about reproduction and marriage.” 
 
Together, these organizations seek to employ people who will advance their religious missions. Yet, the Human Rights Act is interpreted to make it an actionable offense to engage in speech that employees might deem “offensive” or “unwelcome.” It requires these organizations to proactively support employees’ reproductive decisions, even if they involve terminating a pregnancy. It further requires employers to relay these requirements in employee handbooks and workplace posters.
 
Obviously, such requirements are oppressive in their application to religious organizations. As ADF explains in their complaint, the act violates the plaintiffs “freedom of expressive association by forcing them to form associations and assemblies with employees whose reproductive decisions undermine their mission and message ...” It burdens their right to free exercise of religion by effectively “prohibiting faith-based speech and conduct related to reproduction.” And it violates their right to free speech “because it compels them to speak a message contrary to their beliefs not only to their current employees but also to prospective employees and the public in general.”
 
If this offends you, imagine if the law forced Planned Parenthood to hire people who told every person who walked in about the evils of abortion.
 
This Illinois law’s wide array of exemptions includes landlords, financial institutions, private clubs, and more. Yet, the government has made clear that it will not afford these plaintiffs a religious exemption based on their assessment of whether their hiring preferences reflect “bona fide occupational qualification[s].”
 
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a law burdening religion triggers strict scrutiny if it allows for discretionary exemptions. It’s hard to see how Illinois’ Human Rights Act, as applied, would survive such an analysis.
 
We’ll be keeping a close eye on this one.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS