The Diocese of Springfield in Illinois is arguing in federal court that a state “human rights” law is infringing upon its freedoms of religion and speech as well as the freedoms of a pregnancy-resource center in the state.

A lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. district court by the diocese and the Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford alleges that the Illinois Human Rights Act “dictates how religious employers must speak and act about employees’ voluntary reproductive decisions like abortion, contraception, and sterilization.”

The recently amended law forbids employers from engaging in “harassment” against employees; the state has defined harassment to include “unwelcome conduct” regarding whether an employee has “use[d] contraception, fertility treatments, or abortion care.”

The law further “prohibits employers from disciplining or refusing to hire employees” regarding their decisions about abortion and further “requires employers to grant employee accommodations” regarding abortion, the lawsuit alleges.

The measure renders both the diocese and the pregnancy center “powerless to control deeply theological internal matters and to separate themselves from conduct that fatally undermines their mission and message,” the suit states.

The law specifically prevents the diocese from hiring a pro-life advocate and an associate general counsel, the suit argues. Overall the act allegedly interferes with both the diocese’s and the pregnancy center’s religious autonomy “by preventing them from only hiring and retaining employees who abide by their religious beliefs.”

The plaintiffs allege that the law violates both the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

The lawsuit asks the court to forbid the state from enforcing the act against the two parties “in connection with [their] speech and conduct related to reproductive decisions.”

The plaintiffs are being represented in the suit by the religious liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom.

State Attorney General Kwame Raoul and state Department of Human Rights Director James Bennett were named as defendants. Neither office immediately responded to CNA’s requests for comment on the suit as of Friday morning.