Party-line vote moves religious freedom bill to House

LANSING – A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs passed out of the House Judiciary committee on a straight party line vote Thursday morning and is expected to get a vote in the full House later today or early next week.

Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents will claim but merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.

He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.

"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said.

But opponents said that's exactly what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is, especially since a companion bill that would have expanded Michigan's civil rights acts to the LGBT community was declared dead by Bolger after a committee couldn't get enough votes to move the bills to the full House on Wednesday.

"I'm sad and I think it's a shame that the Elliott Larsen path was closed yesterday," Bolger said. "But this bill should be pursued."

Susan Grettenberger, a Central Michigan University professor and social worker, said the religious freedom bill could have seriously harmful consequences, giving an example of a social worker who refused to counsel people based on religious beliefs that didn't support homosexuality.

"Social workers who are opposed to war on religious ground could refuse to serve military members," she said. "If their religion excludes the use of alcohol, they could refuse a client with substance abuse problems."

But constitutional law expert William Wagner, a supporter of the bill, said those examples weren't valid.

"This is about asserting a religious belief against a government action," he said, not between individuals. "The question is, are we still going to be tolerant of religious communities."

And Tom Hickson of the Michigan Catholic Conference, added: "A Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act is good for tolerance and diversity, it is good for individual and religious liberties, and it is for the common good of society."

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, which opposes the bill, wasn't given the opportunity to testify, but spokeswoman Leslee Fritz said the government action phrase was taken out of portions of the legislation passed by the committee.

"The overwhelming concern we have is the intersection of this legislation and the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act," she said. "This legislation would undermine the protections provided in Elliott Larsen."

Amendments offered by Democrats would have required: the law state clearly that the bill would not interfere with the protections offered by the state's civil rights act; that a person asserting a sincerely held religious belief claim provide proof either through tithing to their church or evidence of community service; or that local communities be allowed to pass their own ordinances.

All the amendments failed and all the Democrats on the committee opposed the bill, while all the Republicans supported it.

Contact Kathleen Gray: 517-372-8661, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter@michpoligal