Religious freedom up for debate in Mich. committee

LANSING, Mich. — Despite Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's promise to veto a religious freedom bill if it reaches his desk, the state Senate Judiciary committee will consider such a bill Tuesday.

The hearing on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will come just a couple of hours after the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on bans on same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The committee will not vote on the bill, but wants to hold hearings to bring attention to the issue, which passed the House of Representatives last year but stalled in the state Senate.

"A senator asked me to have a hearing and I said I'd have a hearing," said committee chairman Sen. Rick Jones, a Republican from Grand Ledge. "It's the same thing I did when Sen. Coleman Young, (a Detroit Democrat) asked for a hearing on legalizing marijuana; I allowed a hearing, but didn't get a vote either."

Sponsors of the RFRA bill acknowledge that the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage — expected later this summer — gives the legislation more of a sense of urgency. But they also point out that 20 other states and the federal government have passed some form of RFRA legislation.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

"My goodness, 20 states have it. Barack Obama voted for it in Illinois and it's already in federal law," Jones said. "If there's something so wrong with it, why isn't there a call to repeal the RFRA?"

The proposed Michigan law would provide a legal defense for a business refusing service to a person who violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. The traditional examples are the baker, wedding planner or florist who refuses service for a same-sex wedding.

But the defense could only be used if there were some sort of governmental action against a person or business refusing service. For example: If a gay couple filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission, which then went after the business refusing service. The proposed RFRA bill in Michigan would not preclude lawsuits between two individuals.

Opponents say the bill would legalize discrimination against the LGBT community and that protections for religious freedom already exist in the U.S. and state constitutions.

The decision to address RFRA in Michigan comes after Indiana endured nearly a week of national derision last month for the religious freedom bill signed by Republican Gov. Mike Pence.

Businesses, corporations and organizations decried the law as a license to discriminate against the LGBT community and said the law was making them question whether they should do business in the Midwest state.

The Indiana law was later amended to include language that does not allow businesses to refuse to provide services to the LGBT community based on a religious objection.

After that uproar, Michigan's Republican governor said he would veto a RFRA bill unless it was accompanied by a bill that would expand the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing and hiring, to the LGBT community. That civil rights expansion bill stalled without getting a vote in the House last year. He said he thinks there needs to be two separate bills, not one RFRA bill that might include language that would prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community.

The governor hasn't changed his mind, said Snyder spokesman Dave Murray.

"That's the Legislature's business. That's the process they want to follow," he said. "But the governor has been pretty open on his feelings about that."

Liberal activists said the timing of the hearing was especially disturbing as well as a pending vote in the Senate that would allow faith-based adoption agencies to refuse service to people, such as same-sex or unmarried couples, who violate their religious beliefs.

"This rush by the GOP to enshrine discrimination into state law is a waste of resources and the Legislature's time," said Lonnie Scott, director of Progress Michigan. "RFRA hurts families, is bad for businesses and would make Michigan a national embarrassment."