Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Christian legal group from Ann Arbor opposes gay rights in Hamtramck with lies, disinformation

By Ed Brayton | 08.05.08 | 8:06 pm

The Thomas More Law Center, a Christian legal group founded by Tom Monaghan of Domino’s Pizza, has signed on to represent a group of citizens in Hamtramck to oppose the city’s human rights ordinance, which includes protections for gays against discrimination.

That citizens group is called Hamtramck Citizens Opposing “Special Rights” Discrimination. This group has collected hundreds of signatures to have the ordinance, first passed in June, placed on the ballot in November so they could vote it down.

The law center’s press release contains a couple of real whoppers.

Whopper #1:

The challenged ordinance makes it legal for men who perceive themselves as women to use women’s bathrooms in any school, business or public facility. In classic Orwellian doublespeak, the ordinance defines such behavior as “Natural Rights of Hamtramck Residents.”

The ordinance does no such thing. In fact, it does not mention bathrooms at all. Here’s what the ordinance actually says:

It is the intent of the City of Hamtramck that no person be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights or be discriminated against because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities or status, educational association, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or handicap.

It specifically prohibits three types of discrimination: in housing, in employment and in city government contracting. That’s it. Not a word about bathrooms at all.

Whopper #2:

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “Radical homosexual activists have taken over city councils like Hamtramck all across the nation. These ordinances end up being used to bully and prosecute Christians who faithfully practice their religion.”

But in fact, the Hamtramck ordinance explicitly exempts religious organizations from the nondiscrimination requirements:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, the following practices shall not be violations of this Ordinance:

1) For a religious organization or institution to restrict any of its of housing facilities or accommodations which are operated as a direct part of religious activities to persons of the denomination involved or to restrict employment opportunities for officers, religious instructors and clergy to persons of that denomination. It is also permissible for a religious organization or institution to restrict employment opportunities, housing facilities, or accommodations that are operated as a direct part of religious activities to persons who are members of or who conform to the moral tenets of that religious institution or organization.

Comments