LANSING, MI — Republican state Rep. Frank Foster is preparing to introduce a gay rights bill in the Michigan House, and he’s prepared to “have most everyone not like what I’m doing.”

The long-awaited legislation would add sexual orientation protections to Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace, housing market and places of public accommodation.

But the bill does not include "gender identity and expression" language for transgender residents, as sought by a coalition of large employers and LGBT rights groups pushing for legislative action by the end of the year.

Foster, in an interview before Wednesday's House session, said he anticipates opposition from the political right and the left but believes his bill is a good starting point for an overdue discussion.

“I had a good conversation with my girlfriend this morning that perhaps we’re going down the right road,” said Foster, R-Petoskey. “Not everyone is going to be happy, but I still believe we’re moving an issue forward that’s been a long time in the making.”

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has said he’d like the Legislature to discuss an Elliott-Larsen update during the so-called lame-duck session, which began last week. He has not said what form he’d like that discussion to take.

But state and national LGBT advocacy groups have made clear they will not support an Elliott-Larsen amendment that does not include protections for transgender residents.

Frank Foster will introduce a bill that would add sexual orientation protections to Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

State Rep. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, introduced “fully inclusive” legislation earlier this year.

That bill was referred to the House Committee on Commerce, which Foster chairs. If his bill ends up there too, Foster said he’d like to hold a public hearing on both, likely some time after Thanksgiving.

“I’m supportive of what Sam is trying to do with his bill, and I hope he’d be supportive of what I’m trying to do with my bill,” Foster said.

“I believe both bills move this state forward to being a very inclusive state, and that’s what we need for our society, but also for the workplace.”

Singh, pointing to non-discrimination ordinances in various Michigan cities and laws in other states, said it would be a mistake to advance legislation that only addresses one part of the LGBT community.

“We should not be providing any avenue for discrimination against people, and anything that’s not fully inclusive is a discriminatory bill,” he said. “If the goal is to actually end discrimination against people, there’s only one bill that actually does that.”

Michigan is one of 29 states without LGBT protections, a fact that the Michigan Competitive Workforce Coalition argues makes it harder for the state and its employers to attract top talent.

The coalition, which includes backing from the Republican-aligned American Unity Fund and other national groups, has ramped up their lobbying efforts in recent weeks as the lame-duck session begins.

Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan, said the coalition would not support a “two-word” bill that does not address transgender residents, which she said would be “devastating” for the LGBT community.

National groups are expressing a similar sentiment.

“Removing gender identity and expression protections from non-discrimination legislation is not a compromise--it is an abandonment of our own community,” Stacey Long Simmons of the National LGBTQ Task Force said in a statement.

Critics say any gay rights update to Elliott-Larsen could jeopardize religious freedom for business owners who may not want to offer or participate in a service that runs counter to their beliefs.

House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, has previously said he is exploring the possibility of pairing an Elliott-Larsen amendment with a Michigan version of the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

Bolger has scheduled a press conference for 3:30 p.m. Stay tuned for more coverage.

Foster, for his part, said the bill he is introducing does not include any religious exemptions and he does not see the need. Elliott-Larsen already prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and currently includes exemptions for religious institutions.

Jonathan Oosting is a Capitol reporter for MLive Media Group. Email him, find him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter.