Minnesota Human Rights Act openly attacks religious freedom

In 2023, the legislature amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) to add anti-discrimination protections for “gender identity,” but failed to revise the corresponding religious exception, de facto attempting to remove it.

This year, “gender identity” was added to a list of already protected categories in the MHRA. “Sexual orientation” was already protected under the MHRA, but the term “gender identity” was explicitly added. A religious exemption, already in place since 1993, “prohibited the state from forcing religious organizations to comply with the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act with respect to protected categories such as sexual orientation, where those provisions conflict with the sincerely held beliefs of a religious organization,” said Renee Carlson, general counsel of True North Legal. However, the religious exemption was not updated to include the term “gender identity.”

“While we had hoped it was an oversight, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee officially stated that the omission of those words was intentional,” Carlson said. “During the committee, a discussion ensued in which Democratic lawmakers not only opposed adopting an amendment to protect religious organizations, but also, after hearing testimony from a diverse group of witnesses, called that amendment to protect religious organizations ‘disturbing’ and ‘repugnant.'”

By blatantly excluding “gender identity” from the previously established religious exemption, Minnesota’s legislation is a blatant attack on religious freedom. But the attack does not end there. Churches and religious institutions would be directly affected by this exemption, but so would many unprotected groups served by religious organizations.

“The threat to religious organizations goes far beyond the churches and congregations the law protects. Religious organizations often support marginalized and underserved communities, such as victims of sex trafficking, homeless families and youth through programs that help children graduate from high school and even go to college. These Minnesota religious institutions meet individual needs and fill gaps that government alone could never reach. This was undoubtedly an unprecedented attack on religion and people of faith, but also on the communities they serve,” Carlson said.

The MHRA could even threaten the existence of some religious organizations whose mission and religious beliefs are inextricably linked, Carlson added. “For religious organizations and their members, every decision is inextricably linked to the tenets of their faith tradition. Removing the legal protections for religious organizations from the Minnesota Human Rights Act threatened the existence of all religious institutions whose missions are inextricably linked to their employment practices, catechisms and leadership.”

According to Jason Adkins, general counsel for the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the religious exemption was introduced in 1993 and worked fine until the law added protections for “gender identity.” The religious exemption was never intended to jeopardize anti-discrimination law, but rather to protect the freedom of religious institutions.

“The clear religious exemption gives religious organisations, potential litigants and others the opportunity to anticipate the scope of the MHRA and the pluralism of values ​​it protects, including the autonomy of religious institutions on issues of sexual identity. Anti-discrimination provisions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity were enshrined in law in 1993 in part because religious groups did not oppose them due to the inclusion of the exemption. This clarification of the law restores the gender identity exemption and ensures that the MHRA is not wielded as a sword against faith communities,” said Adkins.

After public backlash, both the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate voted unanimously to restore religious protections.

While the restoration of the exemption provides some protection for religious organisations, there are many members of religious groups who work in areas not controlled by religious institutions. Christian professionals, including teachers, lawyers and doctors, fear having to compromise their religious beliefs to carry out their work in accordance with the MHRA. “Our big concern is that doctors could be penalised for refusing treatments they consider unethical or harmful. This is not a principle of any particular religion, but of natural law and universal human rights,” said a doctor from the Association of American Physicians.

Despite the restoration of the religious exemption, legal battles in defense of religious freedom continue to rage in Minnesota. The new standards requiring state-licensed teachers to affirm students’ gender identity are still in effect. After the MHRA attempted to effectively eliminate the religious exemption, new amendments to the Minnesota Constitution were proposed to attack religious institutions.

Doug Seaton, an attorney at Upper Midwest Law, emphasized the need for constant vigilance in an environment where religious freedom is under constant attack. “We must constantly fight these attacks in the dark and bring them into the light. This effort was successful, but it is a lesson that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”