First, I want to say I wholly reject that this bill promotes, quote, as was mentioned, hostility to people of faith or that it pits religious people against LGBTQ people. I am a gay person with sincerely-held religious beliefs. There is no conflict between my sexual orientation and my religion. I’m saddened that there is in your religion, but you have that right in this country to practice that. All of us with sincerely-held religious beliefs have long been protected within our respective religious institutions and Elliott-Larsen does not disrupt that.
Religion itself is a protected class in Elliott-Larsen but the act cannot compel clergy at a church or mosque to marry a Jewish couple. Marital status is a protected class in Elliott-Larsen but the act cannot compel a Catholic priest to marry someone who has been previously divorced. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the act will not compel a church to marry an LGBTQ couple and in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC , the Supreme Court gave religious institutions wide latitude in hiring and firing employees who perform religious duties—a church can fire a minister who teachers outside the religious text. But adherents of a religion are required to follow neutral, generally-applicable laws. The Supreme Court recognized this principle 150 years ago. To allow otherwise would, “make the professed doctrines of a religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
The Court also noted that decisions after the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that future decisions must be made with tolerance and, “without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” This amendment, however, allows anyone to deny any good or service available in an open market to any person, to fire them or evict them, as long as their religious orientation or identity is the reason. Last year, you might recall, I spent a week reading an excerpt of 350 recently compiled claims of religious discrimination against LGBTQ people in Michigan. Some of them so egregious, I hope everyone in this room thinks that Senate Bill No. 4 should stop them, including the gay guy who was kicked out of a Coney because the owner didn’t want faggots in his restaurant. This amendment gives that restaurant owner the religious freedom to do it all over again if he’s living out his faith as the previous speaker mentioned. Maybe the amendment sponsor wants that, but if you go down that route with this amendment, you’re going to find a lot more issues than just with LGBTQ people.
Sex is a protected class in Elliott-Larsen, but the book of Numbers says women cannot be counted in a census; it says their husbands and fathers can overturn any vow or oath they take. Are you prepared to provide that religious exemption in this amendment to exclude women from full utilization of services in the state of Michigan? Weight is a protected class in Elliott-Larsen, but Leviticus kosher laws are clear about certain kinds of fats and animals that cannot be consumed. Imagine if I went after pork eaters the way you go after gay people. It’s a choice; it’s a lifestyle. Some of you look like pork eaters. This amendment provides me with the religious exemption to hire and fire and evict based on how I perceive your weight. You can take any protected class in this act and find a religious text not just from the Old Testament for someone to use even out of context to discriminate against others.
Clearly some of you still want to use one verse in Leviticus to discriminate against LGBTQ people. But if you were truly sincere, a true sincere adherent to Leviticus, and you let it define how you treat other people, let it instead be the verse that Rabbi Akiva, the ancient Jewish scholar and chief of the sages said was the greatest principle of the Torah— וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוךָ —love thy neighbor as thyself, that it is forbidden to do others what you would not want done to yourself. Treat others how you would want to be treated. I studied the Torah in Hebrew school; you’re not going to challenge me on the Old Testament. Just the fact that some of you can forget that simple principle, that’s what some might call sacrilegious. I urge a “no” vote.
Senator Johnson offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 3, following line 3, by inserting:
“ Sec. 102a. This act does not apply to any claim of discrimination subject to the ministerial exception described in Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v Morrissey-Berru , 140 S Ct 2049 (2020), and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch v EEOC , 565 U.S. 171 (2012). ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows: