Religious exemptions are also freedoms

Freedom to practice religion is a cornerstone of our country and its history — we enjoy many freedoms that are constitutionally protected, and the freedom of religion is the prime example. In the past, the Minnesota Human Rights Act included an exemption for religious groups from being forced to hire individuals that don’t align with their deeply held religious beliefs, because of that very protection. This meant that religious institutions like churches and schools were not forced to hire those whose belief system did not align with those of the organization. Until last year, this exemption extended to include gender identity. Last year, Democrats split up the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and that meant religious organizations still had an exemption for not hiring on the basis of “sexual orientation,” but that exemption no longer applies to “gender identity.”

When these two terms were split in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, we thought the ramifications on religious exemptions were accidental. It was not known that this change would fundamentally alter the way the exemption was applied. Republicans hoped we would be able to revisit the issue this year and we could provide some clarity on the issue. Throughout this year’s committee process, it became very clear that the folks who pushed this change had no intention of extending the exemptions to “gender identity.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard the bill during an evening hearing recently, but waited until 12:30 a.m. to bring the bill up for discussion. Issues of this significance should never be discussed under the cover of darkness. Republicans offered an amendment that would have extended the religious exemption to include the new “gender identity” term, but Democrats did not support that change. This bill will now be considered for inclusion in the Omnibus Judiciary bill.

This is alarming because in this bill (S.F. 4292), it means religious organizations can now be held legally accountable if they choose to not hire someone of a certain “gender identity,” regardless of their religious beliefs. This is a blatant infringement on constitutional rights. The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion according to the First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed this throughout our history. That means we are dealing with an unconstitutional law.

Earlier this year a Democrat senator went on record stating that constitutionality shouldn’t matter when legislators are writing their bills. I disagree: it is our duty to know the potential constitutional ramifications our laws may have. The government cannot compel churches and religious organizations to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our country and its history. The separation of church and state was intended to protect the free practice of religion and prevent the government from endorsing a specific religion or its practices. This was to ensure that government action does not favor or discriminate against a particular religion. We are currently faced with a clear issue of constitutionality. We should avoid the trend of knowingly placing unconstitutional laws on the books, but I’m worried that’s the direction we’re traveling in. The legislature must address this oversight as soon as possible, and we must work to ensure an oversight like this does not slip through the cracks in the future.

To contact State Sen. Jason Rarick, email [email protected] or call his office in St. Paul at 651-296-1508.