By Jay Kaplan
In addition to the bill that excludes transgender people from anti-discrimination protections under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen's Civil Rights Act, the Michigan Republican leadership has introduced House Bill 5958, the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Although not tie barred (making it a condition of passing another piece of legislation) to the Elliott-Larsen bill, the proposed RFRA legislation is being touted by House Speaker Jase Bolger as somehow necessary to protect the religious liberties of individuals who may not believe that LGBT people deserve fair treatment under the law.
At the ACLU of Michigan, we firmly believe this legislation is both unnecessary and dangerous.
To be clear, we have always upheld the principle of religious freedom — which is fundamental to personal liberty and protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ACLU has fought for decades to defend true individual religious freedoms from government interference and intrusion. However, the right to act on one's religious beliefs is not absolute. It is not a free pass to ignore the law or to violate the basic civil rights of others, and it never has been.
We oppose House Bill 5958 because it allows individuals to use their religious beliefs in the context of non-religious activities as an excuse to harm others. If passed, this bill would excuse any person from any state or local law that they claim "burdens" their exercise of religion. This includes beliefs that do not stem from any established religion. Thus, any religious belief can determine which state and local laws a person chooses to honor.
This bill clearly could and would allow religion to be used to discriminate against LGBT people, allowing people or businesses to deny employment, housing or services based on their religious views. An employer, upon discovering that an employee is lesbian, could terminate her employment citing selected biblical scripture that condemns homosexuality. A landlord could refuse to rent an apartment to a same-sex couple. A guidance counselor could refuse to help a gay student because of the counselor's religious belief. A homeless shelter that receives government funding could turn away transgender people or any other people who they believe don't share the organization's religious beliefs.
No doubt you have heard stories from states that permit marriage equality — about county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and banquet hall owners refusing to rent them facilities and bakery owners refusing to bake them wedding cakes. All have tried to claim their "religious beliefs" as an excuse.
Other states with similar legislation have seen individuals and groups use religious freedom as a justification for all sorts of behavior, some of it criminal. Here are just a few examples, based on actual cases:
A police officer in Oklahoma asserted a religious objection to his community policing duties at a mosque, citing a "moral dilemma."
Pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for daily birth control medication.
A pastor who helped kidnap a child in Virginia from her legal guardian cited religious freedom as a defense.
In New Mexico, a local religious leader cited the state RFRA when he appealed his conviction for sexually abusing two teenagers.
A federal judge just held that the federal RFRA prevented the Department of Labor from fully investigating possible child labor law violations because the individual under investigation said that his religious beliefs forbade him from discussing those matters with the government.
The city of Dallas is embroiled in an ongoing seven-year battle with a religious group that has used the Texas RFRA to claim that the city's health code and food safety standards burden their exercise of religion when serving food to the homeless.
Aside from being a broadly and poorly written law, Michigan House Bill 5958 allows individuals to sue and collect money damages, challenging any law, policy or regulation that they see as conflicting with their religious exercise. These lawsuits can and will clog up our court system, and our state and local governments will be forced to squander precious taxpayer dollars trying to show that the policy or law in question serves a "compelling governmental interest."
Religious beliefs are already protected under both our state and federal constitution. Religious organizations and their religious activities are protected from government interference. When an individual or organization voluntarily chooses to engage in non-religious activity, including opening a business, they are subject to various laws, regulations and policies — like civil rights laws — which have been promulgated for the common good.
Unlike the protections already in our constitution, the proposed RFRA would put selected religious beliefs ahead of the common good, going against one of our most important values: treating others the way we want to be treated. House Bill 5958 creates an exemption to laws and policies that mandate fairness and justice.
It is unnecessary and it's bad for Michigan. Contact your legislators and let them know that you oppose this bill.
