Understanding the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Senate Bill 4

Understanding the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Senate Bill 4

PROTECTING ALL MICHIGANDERS FROM DISCRIMINATION

ELLIOTT-LARSEN ALREADY WORKS

MICHIGAN’S PROUD HISTORY OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS 

Michigan has had anti-discrimination laws on the books dating back to 1885 when the enactment of the Civil Rights Act stated that “All persons…shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, restaurants, eating-houses, barber shops, public conveyances on land and water, theaters, and all other places of public accommodation and amusement.” 

Public Act 453 of 1976, commonly known as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination in Michigan on the basis of “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status” in employment, housing, education, and access to public accommodations.  

SENATE BILL 4 SEEKS TO ADD TO ELLIOTT-LARSEN

Senate Bill 4 would add “sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” to the list of items for which discrimination is prohibited. 

Gender identity or expression means having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.

Sexual orientation means having an orientation for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality or having a history of such an orientation or being identified with such an orientation.

ALREADY PROTECTED IN CURRENT LAW

Case law already upholds the protections proposed by this measure. 

The Michigan and U.S. Supreme Courts have already held the federal Title VII definition of sex applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (140 S. Ct. 1731), “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” 

WHY CHANGE THE LAW NOW?

At its best, SB 4 does nothing and simply panders to the most progressive elements of the Democratic Party as a social virtue signal. 

At its worst, SB 4 will cause confusion because of the lack of legal precedent surrounding the word “expression.” And it will open a door for those who have been wishing for an opportunity to weaponize Michigan’s civil rights law against fellow residents with strongly held religious beliefs — fellow Michiganders who are also already protected under the provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

PROTECTING ALL MICHIGANDERS FROM DISCRIMINATION

Anti-discrimination laws should protect all people and not be weaponized against any person or group. Sen. Jim Runestad has proposed an amendment to SB 4 that would ensure protections for religious liberty.  The amendment would include “religious orientation, religious identity or expression” with the law’s religious protections. 

Religious orientation means having an orientation for a faith or religious perspective having a history of such and orientation or being identified with such an orientation. 

Religious identity or expression means having or being perceived as having a religious-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual’s membership at a church, mosque, synagogue, or place of worship.  

Every state that has expanded its civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity has included religious protections within the law. These 22 states include California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, along with the District of Columbia. Without the Runestad amendment, Michigan would be an outlier even among the nation’s most liberal states.

Click here for a PDF version of this document.

Skip to content