LGBTQ rights group and Catholic Church allowed to file briefs in Supreme Court case
A LGBTQ–A specialty health clinic in Detroit and the Michigan Catholic Church have been allowed to rule on opposing sides in a court case challenging a state’s civil rights policy.
The case is pending before the Michigan Supreme Court, which authorized the Corktown Health Center in Detroit and the Michigan Catholic Conference to file amicus briefs.
The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has said it can investigate allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He says it’s because the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination, which states:
“The possibility of obtaining employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal use of public housing, public services and educational establishments without discrimination on grounds of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, family, civil status or marital status prohibited by this law is recognized and declared civil law.
But a wedding venue, Rouch World, and Uprooted Electrolysis, a hair removal clinic, say the state cannot force them to serve same-sex and transgender clients under Michigan civil rights law. The challenge notes that the legislature has refused efforts to expand the law to specifically cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
While not direct parties, the Michigan Catholic Conference and Corktown Health Center have requested that supporting briefs be filed, each on a different side in the case.
Corktown’s brief says that the ability to deny Lgbt the employment of people has considerable implications, including access to health insurance provided by the employer: contrary to the purpose of the Act and to federal case law, it also undermines access to health care. health.
The Michigan Catholic Conference brief states that the Department of Civil Rights’ interpretation is an amendment that expands the intent and scope of the law without action by the legislature, saying: Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act) – s ‘departs from the ordinary meaning of this law… In doing so, it leaves religious communities in its wake. This Court should reject the illegal interpretation and allow the Michiganders, through their elected representatives, to craft solutions that fully and fairly take into account the rights, freedoms and consciences of all in our state. “
A large number of parties have requested to file supporting briefs in the closely watched case and these are still in the process of being submitted.
The pleadings in the case have not yet been scheduled, but are expected to take place in 2022.