Jase Bolger

Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall

(MLive File Photo)

LANSING, MI — The legislative effort to add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to Michigan's anti-discrimination law got off to a rocky start this week in Lansing, where Democrats introduced bills without any Republican support.

That wasn’t how it was supposed to happen.

The business coalition backing the change initially had hoped a Republican would introduce a bill this month to spur bipartisan action, but with those plans on hold until at least November, Democrats reintroduced proposals they've been pushing for years.

The main sticking point for some Republicans, as has long been the case, is the fear that adding language to protect gay residents from workplace discrimination could impinge on the religious expression of employers.

“I believe Michigan workers should be hired or fired based on their work ethic and work performance, and nobody should suffer discrimination just as nobody should be forced to violate their religious beliefs,” House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

“We need to strike this important balance for all of Michigan's hardworking women and men. I still have questions about how this can be achieved through legislation in general but continue to look for a solution. I cannot support the bills discussed to date so far because they do not strike this necessary balance.”

Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act currently prohibits discrimination in the workplace, housing markets or places of public accommodation based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.

Proponents say adding protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) residents is an important civil rights issue, and the business coalition argues that it would make Michigan a more welcoming place for talented individuals considering a job in the state.

AT&T Michigan President Jim Murray, who co-chairs the Michigan Competitive Workforce Coalition, believes there may be room for some common ground on the religious liberty front and remains optimistic that Republican leadership will take up the issue in the lame-duck session.

Some Republican lawmakers are also uncomfortable with adding gender identity protections to Elliott-Larsen, according Murray. If a Republican bill is introduced this fall, it may end up focusing solely on sexual orientation, meaning it may not impact the transgender community.

But Emily Dievendorf of Equality Michigan, one of several partner groups in the coalition, called the gender identity protections “non-negotiable,” explaining that transgender individuals are “the number one category in the LGBT community to be targeted for discrimination.”

She noted that religious freedom is protected in the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions, along with Elliott-Larsen itself. Adding a religious exemption, or removing the T from LGBT, could jeopardize support, according to Dievendorf.

“A broad religious exemption would further make the LGBT community vulnerable to intolerance, and the community will not support a bill that does not include protection for transgender individuals. These are not things we’re willing to bargain on,” she said.

Critics of the push to update Elliott-Larsen point to a series of cases in other states where anti-discrimination laws and religious beliefs have butted heads.

Most recently, a New York family that had rented its barn for wedding ceremonies was fined for turning away a lesbian couple. The family, citing religious opposition to homosexuality, reportedly decided to stop hosting weddings all together.

David Maluchnik of the Michigan Catholic Conference applauded Bolger for his “very prudent” approach this week and said that religious liberty should remain a part of the conversation if any Elliott-Larsen bills do move forward this fall.

“What we would strongly prefer is that this effort is not intended to be used as a sword against religious organizations or persons, as has happened in other states,” Maluchnik said. “We believe it’s absolutely essential, as Speaker Bolger has been saying, that religious liberty rights are part of the proposed changes.”

A similar debate popped up in 2011, when Senate Republicans inserted an exemption into an anti-bullying bill to ensure that students or school workers could not be punished for “ a statement of sincerely held belief or moral conviction.”

The provision, which critics called a “license to bully,” was not included in the House version that was later signed into law by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder.

State Rep. Sam Singh, an East Lansing Democrat who is the lead sponsor on new anti-discrimination legislation in the House, said he might be able to support a "very specific and tailored (religious) exemption that talks about constitutional rights that are already out there,” potentially through companion legislation from Republicans.

Democratic state Sen. Rebekah Warren of Ann Arbor, who reintroduced her Elliott-Larsen update bill on Wednesday, said the anti-discrimination law itself does not leave a lot of room for a religious exemption. She said Democrats would be very wary of companion legislation that “allows people to use freedom of religion to discriminate.”

“I don’t think you would see any of us working to enshrine something in state statute that’s worse than having nothing, and that’s what we have now,” said Warren. “That would be a dividing line for us.”

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