holding that state constitutional language stating that “nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted . . . grants far more protection of religious freedom” than the federal free exercise clause
How later courts described this case
- holding that state constitutional language stating that “nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted . . . grants far more protection of religious freedom” than the federal free exercise clause
- holding that landlord whose sincere religious beliefs were inconsistent with premarital cohabitation was entitled to exemption from state’s enforcement of human rights act prohibiting discrimination based on marital status
- recognizing that, on appeal from summary judgment, reviewing court considers whether lower court erred as matter of law
- concluding that a landlord was entitled to a constitutional exemption from the MHRA
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SIMONETT, Justice
(concurring as to Part I).
I join Part I of the court’s opinion, Because the issue of statutory construction is dispositive here, I do not reach the constitutional questions.