The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case of a former Calvin University professor who was terminated after officiating a wedding between two LGBTQ+ students.
A former professor at Calvin University filed a lawsuit against the institution in 2023 after he was terminated in 2022 following his officiating the wedding. The professor, Joseph Kuilema, alleges that the college violated his rights under Article II of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The law prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status.
“It never occurred to me that this would be the end with me and Calvin. A former student of mine (a transgender male) asked me to officiate his wedding to his lovely wife and I thought, ‘Great, this is fantastic, let’s do it.’”
The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the lawsuit.
Founded by the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin aligns with the belief that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, and the institution expects its faculty to uphold these values. Even though it considers same-sex acts sinful, the denomination does allow LGBTQ+ people to serve in the offices and the life of the church congregation.
“While there is room for personal disagreement with Christian Reformed Church doctrine, the university has clear expectations for employees regarding teaching, scholarship, and personal conduct, and follows established processes to review alleged violations of those expectations and to determine appropriate responses,” Calvin University officials said in a statement to Michigan Public.
When the wedding took place in October 2021, one of the individuals being married was working at Calvin’s Center for Social Research as a project manager, a fact which, according to the college, made Kuilema at fault for aiding another employee in breaking Calvin’s rules. The Center for Social Research has since split from the university.
In court, Kuilema has argued that the school did not have a policy in place that would have kept him from officiating this wedding. But he said school officials told him that he should have consulted with university leadership before agreeing to officiate his former students' wedding.
“I talked to some people in my department, and I talked to some people at my personal church, and I said, ‘Does this seem in bounds to you?’ And they all said yes. And so I went ahead with it and there were no concerns at the time,” said Kuilema.
Three months after the wedding took place, Calvin began an investigation into claims that Kuilema had violated university policy.
This wasn't the first time Kuilema faced criticism from his former employer over his views on LGBTQ people. According to court documents, in 2017 and in 2019, Kuilema was denied tenure and instead had his contract renewed for an additional two years over his position, which were then contrary to the CRC’s positions. His second denial for tenure in 2019 also took place the same year Kuilema was named Professor of the Year at the university.
The Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of ministerial exception, or the belief that religious institutions operate outside of employment discrimination laws, but this case is a little bit more complicated than that.
The legal battle between Kuilema and Calvin has played out in the lower courts over the last three years.
The question the lower courts have disagreed on is whether Kuilema’s rights under Michigan’s Civil Rights Act were violated when his contract was terminated over his decision to officiate an LGBTQ+ wedding. Kuilema argues that his rights were violated based on associational discrimination.
Such a claim would mark new legal territory for Michigan courts.
In its opinion, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act does not expressly provide a cause of action for associational discrimination, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
While Michigan courts have previously recognized claims of associational discrimination in cases involving race, no court has yet addressed whether such a claim may be brought based on sex. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals determined that those race-based precedents did not apply to Kuilema’s case.
“The university’s decision to terminate his employment was based upon his decision to officiate a same-sex wedding,” the court stated. “That decision would not have been different if Kuilema were a female instead of a male…. there is no allegation whatsoever that Kuilema’s sex had any impact on the termination decision.”
Kuilema and his attorney, Charissa Huang, are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to decide if the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act pertains to claims about sex-based associational discrimination, and whether or not Kuilema pled that claim, according to Huang.
Calvin University claims that constitutional principles for religious freedom protect the private Christian university, giving them the right to make any employment decision under an ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, according to Huang.
Huang and Kuilema have argued against this. “The question that the court needs to deliberate on is whether this case requires the court to determine any ecclesiastical, any religious doctrine question. And Joe and I firmly believe that this case does not require the court to determine any questions of religious doctrine” said Huang.
“I helped two individuals access their basic civil rights as Americans to marry one another,” said Kuilema. “And I don’t think that we should give religion a blank check to discriminate.”
It was only after Kuilema was terminated, in 2022, that the Christian Reformed Church doubled down, when members of the denomination determined its stance on sexuality was considered “confessional” status, or core to the church and its values. In 2025, the denomination took it a step further by ruling that its churches, pastors, elders and deacons need to agree with the CRC on matters of “confession” including on sexuality or face discipline.
Before this alteration to the newly-minted ‘confessional’, Kuilema and his colleagues felt surprised that “The Calvin administration was taking a harder stance on this than the denomination itself had taken.”
A date is yet to be set for the Michigan Supreme Court to hear oral arguments for the case.
