In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled to allow two separate cases involving religious organizations in Michigan, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, to move forward.
The cases, Christian Healthcare Centers v. Nessel and Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish v. Nessel, challenge the state’s interpretation and enforcement of its civil rights law, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).
The ruling permits both cases to return to federal district court, where the organizations will seek to prevent Michigan from enforcing its law against them while their cases proceed.
What is Alliance Defending Freedom?
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, marriage and family, and the sanctity of life.
Alliance Defending Freedom Church & Ministry Alliance is a dedicated branch of Alliance Defending Freedom providing specialized legal support to religious institutions. This division concentrates on protecting the fundamental liberties of faith-based organizations to ensure their ability to practice and express their beliefs without encountering unjustified limitations or hindrances.
Michigan’s Civil Rights Act was recently interpreted by state courts to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Both Christian Healthcare Centers and Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish argue that Michigan’s interpretation of the Civil Rights Act conflicts with their religious practices and beliefs. They contend that the law, as interpreted, could compel them to act against their faith-based principles. They express concerns about being forced to hire individuals who don’t align with their religious values, use preferred pronouns and provide services that contradict their beliefs – such as hormone treatments for gender transition. They also contend that the reinterpretation would limit their ability to express their religious viewpoints in various contexts, including education and promotion.
The court’s ruling on the plausibility of legal challenges related to a Biblical Counselor position at Christian Healthcare Centers illustrates a key aspect of the difficulties that the reinterpretation of ELCRA poses to the plaintiffs. According to Christian Healthcare, were it not for the ELCRA, they would immediately begin advertising for a Biblical Counselor position. The job posting would explicitly state that any applicant must fully agree with their Statement of Faith, which includes their beliefs about sex and marriage.
In its ruling, the court stated that it is “at least plausible that an ‘aggrieved’ person… would file a complaint stating that the public-accommodation publication provision had been violated…”
“And it is also plausible that such a person would ask Christian Healthcare to confirm that it would not offer hormones to facilitate gender transition or use preferred pronouns—and then, upon confirmation, file a complaint alleging they had been denied service,” the court added.
ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart celebrated the court’s decision.”The Constitution is clear: Religious organizations have the freedom to operate and serve their communities according to their beliefs,” Neihart said in a statement on Alliance Defending Freedom Media.
“Rather than respecting Christian Healthcare’s religious motivations to provide quality care to all members of the community, Michigan state officials threatened to punish the ministry for living out its faith. And in the case of Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish, government officials can’t target faith-based organizations simply for adhering to their religious beliefs as both a federal district court and the U.S. Supreme Court have concluded in other cases. The 6th Circuit was right to allow these cases to proceed. Michigan officials should respect religious organizations’ constitutionally protected freedom to follow the very faith that has motivated them to serve others,” Neihart added.