Religious freedom bill stirs controversy

Freedom or discrimination — that’s the debate surrounding the most controversial piece of legislation to thus far come out of the Michigan Legislature’s lame-duck session.

Called the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the bill (H.B. 5958) passed the House in a party-line vote Dec. 4 and is headed to the Senate.

It restricts any government ordered action that “substantially burdens” an individual’s exercise of a “sincerely held religious belief.”

The bill’s passage commanded national attention.

The Advocate, a leading LGBT magazine, said it provided “a license to discriminate.”

In contrast, Michigan Catholic Conference spokesman Tom Hickson called the bill “good for tolerance and diversity.”

It has prompted similar debate locally.

“This is scary,” said Beth Duman of Livingston County PFLAG, an organization for parents and families of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

While LGBT housing and employment rights are at the heart of the debate, Duman said the issue goes further.

“What if you were an EMT and you said your religion told you not to treat someone of a different culture?” she said.

House Democrats offered similar arguments, questioning whether the bill would offer an end run around Michigan cities’ open-housing ordinances and allow medical professionals, and others, to deny services.

“This bill moves us in a new and uncharted direction,” said Rep. Vicki Barnett, D-Farmington Hills. “It requires me and others to practice the faith of our employers, grocers and pharmacists.”

House Republicans see it differently.

Livingston County Reps. Cindy Denby and Bill Rogers not only voted in favor of the measure, but joined 47 other House members — all Republicans — in signing on as co-sponsors.

“Religious freedom is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, and this takes it to the state level,” said Denby, R-Handy Township.

Having so many legislators sign on as a co-sponsors, Rogers, said was “a statement” on the importance of religious rights.

Rogers, R-Genoa Township, called controversy over its interpretation overblown.

“These people (EMTs, pharmacists and doctors) are trained professionals bound by the rules of their professions,” he said.

For Denby, “others would step in” should certain professionals decline to offer services based on their religious convictions.

A homebuilder returning to that trade full time once the session ends, Rogers also said he doubted the bill would impact housing ordinances.

“For me, I know it’s not about anything other than whether people can pay,” he said.

House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, the bill’s primary sponsor, said it would allow people “to practice their faith in peace.”

The bill adopts the rationale that a law can burden an individual’s religious rights even without referencing any religious practices.

It would also allow individuals to claim their actions were motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief” without having to prove that belief was central to any particular religious doctrine.

State or local officials would have to prove a law or other requirement furthers a compelling governmental interest.

Officials would also have to prove the action in question is “the least restrictive means” of doing so.

For opponents like Duman, the rationale is less benign. She said “it’s all about ‘the other’ and fear of ‘the other,’ ”

Ultimately, the bill’s fate could rest with Gov. Rick Snyder and his willingness to support or break with fellow Republicans.

Snyder had earlier said he hoped the lame-duck session would bring an expansion of Michigan’s landmark Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include the LGBT community.

That proposal, however, failed to make it to a House vote.

Contact Daily Press & Argus reporter Wayne Peal at 517-548-7081 or at wpeal@gannett.com.