Christian health care provider sues over LGBTQ protections in Michigan civil rights law – MLive.com
GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A Christian health care group claims Michigan civil rights law now violates its religious convictions after a state court ruled discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal.
Christian Healthcare Centers filed a federal lawsuit Monday, about a month after the Michigan Supreme Court decided the law includes protections for LGBTQ people. The faith-based nonprofit located in the Grand Rapids area argues the law now “poses an imminent threat” to its constitutional right to operate as a religious ministry.
At issue is Christian Healthcare being required to hire people of any faith and provide medical treatments that don’t align with their belief in the “the immutability of biological sex.”
“Under the guise of stopping discrimination, the law discriminates against religious organizations, requiring them to forfeit their religious character and hire people who do not share their faith,” the lawsuit alleges.
Related: Sexual orientation is now protected by Michigan’s civil rights law. What does that mean?
Named in the suit are Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is responsible for enforcing the civil rights law, executive director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights John Johnson Jr. and the seven members of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission.
The attorney general’s office said Tuesday it is reviewing the lawsuit.
Christian Healthcare argues for its right to only hire people who share their religious beliefs because everything they do is “infused with faith,” like staff prayer meetings, discussing spiritual aspects of medical care and praying with patients.
The health care provider also claims Michigan law violates its “religious convictions” by potentially forcing the nonprofit to “prescribe cross-sex hormones” and refer to patients by their “stated gender identity, rather than their biological sex.”
“In effect, the law requires Christian Healthcare to check its religious faith at the clinic door — the very faith that motivates the clinic to open its doors to help those in need,” the complaint said.
Christian Healthcare provides medical care to anyone regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the lawsuit.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a national legal non-profit, is representing Christian Healthcare in the case.
“Now that the Michigan court system has essentially rewritten Michigan’s laws regarding sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, that law threatens the ability of ministries like Christian Healthcare to faithfully serve their community,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lead counsel John Bursch.
The Christian legal interest group has been involved in nearly 30 U.S. Supreme Court cases related to religious freedom, same-sex marriage and abortion. It’s been deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-LGBTQ beliefs. But Alliance Defending Freedom responded by calling the law center a “radical leftist organization.”
Bursch emphasized the Christian Healthcare case is not a “matter of discrimination” but protecting “religious liberty.”
“They are not excluding anyone, they are not discriminating against anyone, instead, they are undertaking hiring actions and providing medical services in a way that will allow everyone to flourish,” he said.
Related: Michigan Supreme Court rules sexual orientation protected by civil rights law
Michigan law protects LGBTQ people from discrimination after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in late July the word “sex” in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 encompasses sexual orientation.
The issue landed in the high court after two Michigan businesses were investigated for denying service to LGBTQ people. A lawsuit filed by Rouch World and UpRooted Electrolysis two years ago argued the state could not investigate claims of LGBTQ discrimination under the authority of a 2018 interpretative statement.
But the 5-2 court decision solidified LGBTQ rights under the law.
The legal recognition of LGBTQ rights has created tension between religious liberty and civil rights.
“This is going to be the cutting edge legal and social issue for the foreseeable future,” said Steven Winter, a Walter S. Gibbs professor of constitutional law at Wayne State University who is not involved in the lawsuit.
Several cases have landed in U.S. Supreme Court including a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple, a Pennsylvania foster care agency that would not certify same-sex couples and a Colorado web designer who doesn’t want to make same-sex wedding websites.
But the courts have yet to set a precedent on denying service based on religion.
Winter said this pushback around religious liberty and LGBTQ rights would “never be countenanced” if it were about racial discrimination.
“I’m not sure that’s logically consistent, but I think that reflects the moral norms. The morality of racial discrimination is much more deeply entrenched in our society, which is a great development, and it’s literally happened in my lifetime,” he said. “LGBTQ rights are clearly not there yet, but I think they will be for some generation in the future.”
Christian Healthcare is seeking an injunction to stop Michigan from enforcing the civil rights law due to first amendment rights, but Winter says, “you can’t enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the law.”
The health care group is also asking the court for a declaratory relief on hiring.
Winter said the lawsuit makes a strong case on the issue of employment but arguments around free speech seem to be “incredibly weak.” As it goes through the courts, the case could ultimately set a precedent both in Michigan and the United States — a goal for Alliance Defending Freedom.
“It could be a ruling that other courts in other states around the country look to to ensure that religious organizations can hire people who share their faith, can advertise that they’re trying to hire people who share their faith and they can run their businesses and organizations in ways that don’t violate their religious beliefs,” Bursch said.
The attorney general’s office and other defendants have 21 days to respond to the lawsuit.
More on MLive:
Board deadlocks on Michigan voting rights proposal; court fight likely
Despite BP oil refinery fire, Michigan gas prices keep sliding
Michigan gets $50M to fix roads and bridges after 2020 flood