Script-free related records · Release 2026-07-28.3

Related roll calls

Follow collected relationships through the same typed, immutable public API used by the enhanced record.

← Back to the script-free parent record

Showing 5 related records on this page. A total was not computed.

Related record
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
senate
Context text
26. Amend page 12, line 7, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 27. Amend page 13, line 6, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 28. Amend page 14, line 17, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 29. Amend page 14, line 27, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 30. Amend page 15, line 6, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 31. Amend page 15, line 12, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 32. Amend page 15, line 27, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. 33. Amend page 16, line 12, after “religion,” by inserting “ religious orientation, religious identity or expression, ”. The question being on the adoption of the amendments, Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor. The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Excused
0
Measure id
measure-5644
Motion text
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Nays
21
Not voting
0
Result
failed
Sitting id
sitting-567
Vote date
2023-03-01
Vote id
vote-6807
Vote number
29
Yeas
17
Related record
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
senate
Context text
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:
Excused
0
Measure id
measure-5644
Motion text
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Nays
20
Not voting
0
Result
failed
Sitting id
sitting-567
Vote date
2023-03-01
Vote id
vote-6808
Vote number
30
Yeas
18
Related record
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
senate
Context text
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno Excused—0 Not Voting—0 In The Chair: President Senator Runestad offered the following amendment: 1. Amend page 3, following line 3, by inserting: “ (4) This act must not be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States, federal law, or the state constitution of 1963 or other law of this state. (5) Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the state constitution of 1963, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities, whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, are not required by this act to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges does not create any civil claim or cause of action. ”. 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:
Excused
0
Measure id
measure-5644
Motion text
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Nays
20
Not voting
0
Result
failed
Sitting id
sitting-567
Vote date
2023-03-01
Vote id
vote-6809
Vote number
31
Yeas
18
Related record
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
senate
Context text
Not Voting—0 In The Chair: President Protests Senators Moss, Geiss, Polehanki, McMorrow, Klinefelt, Irwin, Cherry, Bayer, Shink, Chang, McCann, Cavanagh, Camilleri, Hertel, Brinks, Santana, McDonald Rivet, Singh, Anthony and Wojno, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Runestad to Senate Bill No. 4. Senator Moss moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Moss’ statement, in which Senators Geiss, Polehanki, McMorrow, Klinefelt, Irwin, Cherry, Bayer, Shink, Chang, McCann, Cavanagh, Camilleri, Hertel, Brinks, Santana, McDonald Rivet, Singh, Anthony and Wojno concurred, is as follows: If the Senator keeps opening the door, I’m going to keep walking through it—and this is my “no” vote explanation. As mentioned, this amendment deals with, among other items, protections to marriage. As previously stated, this amendment is unnecessary because government cannot intervene with religious ceremony, including marriage, but I do want to thank the Senator for bringing up this amendment on marriage because it allows me to talk briefly about the absolutely shameful way this state in the past has allowed religion to discriminate against LGBTQ people outside the walls of a religious institution. In 2004, Michigan approved the harshest marriage ban in the country—not even civil unions were allowed. During this period of time, however, rabbis and other clergy recognized, sanctioned, and even would perform same-sex marriages according to their sincerely-held religious beliefs. But your religion wouldn’t allow them so therefore yours prevailed to discriminate against religious people like me. Gay people couldn’t even get married in a secular ceremony inside a city hall performed by a clerk because your religion wouldn’t allow it. So when you use religion only to discriminate against LGBTQ people but never to uplift LGBTQ people, I have no interest in putting this language in the Civil Rights Act. The current interpretation of law is sufficient. I request a “no” vote. The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, assumed the Chair. The question being on the passage of the bill, The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Excused
0
Measure id
measure-5644
Motion text
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Nays
15
Not voting
0
Result
passed
Sitting id
sitting-567
Vote date
2023-03-01
Vote id
vote-6810
Vote number
32
Yeas
23
Related record
Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Open script-free record →
Inspect published fields
Chamber
house
Context text
36. Amend page 15, line 28, after “ orientation, ” by striking out “ gender identity or expression, ”. 37. Amend page 16, line 13, after “ orientation, ” by striking out the balance of the line through “ expression, ” on line 14. The motion did not prevail and the amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor. Rep. Hoskins moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills. The motion prevailed. By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of Third Reading of Bills Rep. Aiyash moved that Senate Bill No. 4 be placed on its immediate passage. The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor. Senate Bill No. 4, entitled A bill to amend 1976 PA 453, entitled “Elliott-Larsen civil rights act,” by amending the title and sections 102, 103, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 301, 302, 302a, 402, 501, 502, 504, 505, and 506 (MCL 37.2102, 37.2103, 37.2202, 37.2203, 37.2204, 37.2205, 37.2206, 37.2207, 37.2209, 37.2301, 37.2302, 37.2302a, 37.2402, 37.2501, 37.2502, 37.2504, 37.2505, and 37.2506), the title as amended by 1992 PA 258, sections 102, 502, 504, 505, and 506 as amended by 1992 PA 124, sections 103 and 301 as amended by 1999 PA 202, section 202 as amended by 2009 PA 190, section 302a as added by 1992 PA 70, and section 402 as amended by 1993 PA 216. Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Excused
Not recorded
Measure id
measure-5644
Motion text
Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Nays
45
Not voting
Not recorded
Result
passed
Sitting id
sitting-381
Vote date
2023-03-08
Vote id
vote-2701
Vote number
18
Yeas
64

Related roll calls

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows: