Although some blatantly revoke or block rights, others create an atmosphere of discrimination, they say.

One bill, which was passed by the legislature last month, would revoke MSU’s right to offer same-sex couples equivalent benefits as married couples. If the bill passes, it will be illegal for public employers — including MSU — to offer same-sex partners these benefits. The university currently offers benefits to same-sex and married couples.

“It’s an unprovoked attack against a minority that has already been relegated to second-class citizens in this country,” said Joe Duffy, president of the MSU College Democrats.

But Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, insists the bill is not an attack on the gay community, but an attempt to uphold current laws, which render same-sex marriage illegal in Michigan.

“You’ve got a group of people in civil services and colleges who think they’re above the law,” Agema said. “I have the law on my side.”

The bill also has riled up state activists. Allowing same-sex partner benefits is essential for the state to retain talented workers, Emily Dievendorf, public policy director for Equality Michigan, said in an email. Equality Michigan is a state-wide advocacy group for LBGT rights.

“Representative Agema is pushing poor public policy motivated by bias under the guise of fiscal responsibility,” Dievendorf said.

Another bill working its way through the legislature would strip the City of East Lansing’s right to uphold antidiscrimination laws that include members of the LBGT community, which could affect students employed off campus.

East Lansing’s current antidiscrimination policy prevents employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“It’s going to make all (of) those policies void. It takes power away from communities who have made progress, while Michigan as a whole has not,” said Mark Doebler, a social relations and policy senior and chair of MSU’s Alliance of Queer & Ally Students.

The alliance, which sent a mass email Tuesday rallying support against what they see as discriminatory legislation, also is fighting a bill that would allow students enrolled in counseling programs to opt out of treating gay patients. They argue it would reduce therapists’ ability to council gay patients in the future.

The bill is based on the case of an Eastern Michigan University student who was disenrolled from her program after refusing to treat a gay student because it violated her religion.

Rep. Joe Haveman, R-Holland, said the bill’s goal is to secure religious freedom.

“For people to misconstrue this and say it’s anti-gay is ridiculous,” Haveman said. “You would think that (MSU) students would want those rights protected.”