ST. PAUL – State Rep. Ben Davis, R-Mission Township, said House Republicans took a major step toward restoring religious freedom which Minnesota Democrats stripped from faith-based organizations last year.
The House on Tuesday approved a variation of Republican legislation, amending the Minnesota Human Rights Act to re-establish protections for religious entities against discrimination claims. The bill unanimously passed the Senate earlier in the day and, with the House also providing unopposed approval, it now is on Gov. Tim Walz’s desk for enactment.
“This issue needed to be resolved and I’m glad it was,” Davis said. “That said, it still is a red alert regarding the direction our state is heading under full control of Democrats. Even though we averted a crisis this time, Democrats have revealed they are coming for our foundational American religious freedoms. It is a sad indictment of the radical Democrat faction that has total control of our government and placed the state over the church. And they confessed publicly this was done on purpose.”
Davis said Tuesday's action was necessary due to HRA legislation Democrats enacted in 2023, eliminating religious protections that had been in place since 1993. Before last year, when gender identity was included (or subsumed) within the MHRA definition of sexual orientation, the still-existing religious exemption for sexual orientation covered gender identity claims as well. When a new, separate definition of gender identity was created last year, there was no corresponding religious exemption added.
Davis said he is confident the courts ultimately would have ruled the change Democrats made last year unconstitutional. He also indicated he’s glad it didn’t get that far and faith-based schools can, among other things, continue hiring teachers and ministers consistent with their mission and values.
“The law Democrats passed last year is a clear violation of our Constitution and, in my opinion, it would not have held up in court,” Davis said. “Even so, it is good we avoided a court case that likely would have cost taxpayers immensely even in a just outcome.”
-30-