LANSING — Civil rights organizations expressed strong opposition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that passed the Michigan House of representatives last week.  The bill protects sincerely held religious beliefs from interference by the state.  

The bill H.B. 5958, was approved in a party line vote in the House, but still needs to pass through the Senate and be signed by the governor before it becomes law.

Opponents of the bill said it would enable discrimination under the pretext of religion, especially against  LGBT  individuals. 

However, Republicans, who backed the bill, argued that it merely protects religious freedoms. The religious Freedom Restoration Act is modeled after a federal law with the same name that was signed into law by President Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal act does not apply to the states, which prompted 18 states to pass their own version of it.

Nabih Ayad, the executive director of the Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL), explained that under this act the government should use “strict scrutiny” to try to strike down any illegal action justified by freedom of religion.

“The concern from the civil rights perspective is a landlord can say ‘my religion tells me I can’t rent to Arabs; I don’t have to rent to Arabs’,” he said. “It can be used in the wrong fashion to discriminate against people, camouflaging discrimination as freedom of religion.”

The Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act and the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaw discrimination based on race, color, religion and national origin.

However, Ayad said under the RFRA, the Civil Rights Act “takes a back seat” if it is a true religious belief that is prompting the discrimination.

The civil rights attorney said the attempts to pass the RFRA in Michigan are a part of an “anti-freedom” wave throughout the country.

“Look at the Right to Work laws; the assaults on affirmative action; the emergency manager laws,” he said. “There is an attack on minorities to strip them from these rights that they have fought decades and decades for.”

Ayad said some religious minorities, including Muslims, could benefit from the RFRA by gaining religious accommodations, “but it’s a dangerous path.” He added that as vulnerable communities Arabs and Muslims need laws that protect civil rights, not threaten them.

State Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit), who voted against the bill, said the RFRA is not neccessary. 

“Is there an outcry about religious rights being violated by the state?” she asked, rhetorically. “Do we really need this bill? There is no reason for it at all.”

Tlaib added that the First Amendment already ensures freedom of religion.

She said her main concern about the bill is that it could lead to a slippery slope that legalizes discrimination, especially against LGBT individuals, who are not protected by the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.

She also urged Gov. Snyder not to sign the bill if it passes through the Republican-controlled State Senate. 

Tlaib said if provisions of the bill come into conflict with the state’s civil rights act, it will be up to a judge to decide if laws have been violated on an individual basis. 

“One thing this is going to certainly do is increase the number of lawsuits,” Tlaib said. 

The RFRA has been tested in numerous cases throughout the country. This year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, does not have to provide certain contraceptives to employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act, based on religious rights.

A police captain in Tulsa, OK was demoted in 2011 for refusing to go or send his subordinates to attend an event at a mosque. Captain Paul Fields sued the city on RFRA grounds, arguing that going to the mosque would have violated his religious beliefs. 

Fields was represented by a right wing law firm, based in Ann Arbor. A federal court dismissed his case

Fatina Abdrabboh, the Michigan director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said the RFRA could lead to discrimination if signed into law.

“It is ironic that these religious accommodation laws could infringe on the rights of certain groups, including religious minorities,” she said. “This type of law poses several issues, not the least of which that it is poorly written and vague and the unintended consequences are many.  For instance, it may allow people to take advantage and claim that their religion gives them the right to ignore laws. And it could allow individuals to decide that non-discrimination laws, child abuse laws, and domestic violence laws don’t apply to them.”

She added that Arab and Muslim Americans will be especially affected by the act.

“We need to be cautious as we envision the scenarios where someone’s purported or sincerely held beliefs include a disdain for Arabs and Muslims,” she said.

According to Abdrabboh, this scenario is possible, given the climate the Arab American community often faces.

“We should be cautious before we are supportive of legislation wrapped in the language of religious accommodation when it could be a cover for exclusion, bigotry and ideologues trying to instill their way of life as the only way,” Abdrabboh said. “Arab Americans must continue to develop positions that are legally sound and morally consistent.  We know all too well what happens when intolerance goes unchecked. This could be an affront for religious minorities.”

Rana Elmir, the deputy executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU-MI), also criticized the bill. She said religious beliefs should not be used to violate others’ rights.

“We oppose H.B. 5958 precisely because it could allow individuals to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to harm others, including religious and ethnic minorities, women and the LGBT community,” she said. “This bill allows individuals to claim that their religion gives them the right to ignore critical laws– laws that protect against child labor, domestic violence and discrimination.”

Elmir also criticized the bill for being “broadly written.” She said the RFRA could have unforeseen consequences and compromise our communities.  

“Our government is not in the business of deciding whose religion is paramount and our current laws– the state and federal constitutions— already protect our fundamental right to religious freedom,” she said.

However, Republicans have fended off criticism, arguing that the RFRA mirrors a federal law signed by a Democratic president.

Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the bill is designed to keep the government out of religious practices.

“This is not a license to discriminate,” He told the Detroit Free Press. “People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace.”