Category: Religious Freedom

Dear friends,

As your voice in the legislature and the courts, True North Legal and Minnesota Family Council want to be sure you are equipped with information to engage on critical issues regarding life, family, and religious freedom. 

Many of you have been following recent changes to the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which is not only consequential to Christians, but people of all faiths in Minnesota. This issue is of critical and urgent concern for all of us who believe in religious freedom in Minnesota. I’d like to provide you with more information on these changes from the perspective of a religious freedom attorney, and also ask you to take a moment to tell your legislators to protect religious freedom by clicking this link or the button below to go to Minnesota Family Council’s action alert.

In short, last year the legislature amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) by adding explicit legal protections for people based on “gender identity”. Previously protections extended to “sexual orientation” and were interpreted to apply to gender identity. The MHRA also included protections for religious organizations via a religious exemption established in 1993 when sexual orientation was added to the list of protected groups in the MHRA. This exemption prohibited the state from forcing religious organizations to comply with the anti-discrimination law provisions with respect to protected categories like sexual orientation when those provisions are inconsistent with a religious organization’s sincerely held beliefs. (See Minn. Stat. 363A.20, 363A.26). 

The religious exemption statute was not amended last year to make clear that the legislature intended to maintain protections for religious organizations. The words “gender identity” should have been included in the exemption as well. While we had hoped it was an oversight, last month the House Judiciary Chair stated on the record that the omission of those words was intentional. A discussion ensued during the committee where Democratic legislators not only refused to accept an amendment to protect religious organizations, but also called the amendment to protect religious organizations “disturbing” and “disgusting.” This despite hearing reasoned testimony from members of different faith communities, including Christians, Catholics, and Muslims. 

The Minnesota Senate also took up the MHRA bill providing another opportunity to testify and request that the Senate amend the bill and restore protections for religious organizations. We had around 24 hours’ notice from Sunday to Monday to prepare for this hearing. I arrived at 6:00 pm on Monday and testified at 12:30 am on Tuesday morning. You can watch my testimony here on Instagram or here on YouTube. Testifiers were only given two minutes for remarks on this significant issue and the committee Chairman stated his intent to wrap up any discussion on the MHRA bill in 20 minutes.  

The time for solidarity for religious freedom and from religious people is now! You can click on this link to ask your legislators to stand up for religious freedom. We align on this issue with many faith communities in Minnesota. To be clear, our ecumenical partnerships are not a departure from our strong Christian convictions and beliefs. Our partnership is a reflection of our understanding that if we want religious freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others.  And, in this freedom we have the great opportunity, and duty, to share the gospel! 

Having worked with ministries and churches for quite a few years while also being involved in ministry and married to a pastor, the Lord has uniquely prepared me to be on the frontlines of this issue. He does not waste anything in my life experiences or yours! 

True North Legal will continue in the work to restore our legal protections under Minnesota law. It is a joy to co-labor with all of you.

Renee Carlson

General Counsel, True North Legal

Watch Renee’s testimony on SF 23 above, or read the full text below.

Madam chair and members,

My name is Renee Carlson. I serve as General Counsel for TNL.

Life isn’t easy. We know this from the testimonies heard today.

Because every person’s story is different, access to trusted counselors is critical for all Minnesotans.

Moreover, counselors and clients should direct the conversations about a client’s counseling experience, not the government. 

But SF 23 doesn’t allow either. It stifles personal counseling goals by censoring constitutionally protected speech of licensed counselors, clients, and many others, which is likely to result in a vacuum of care, leaving patients who voluntarily seek counseling without any options.

SF 23’s unconstitutional discrimination based on content and viewpoint permits speech that helps a person change his or her gender identity or embrace same-sex attractions. Yet bans speech, that helps a person address unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has “long protected the First Amendment rights of professionals”—such as therapist and counselors, and signaled that counseling censorship laws such as SF 23 violate these rights and principles regarding free speech.

And, just a few years ago, the 11th circuit court of appeals struck down a FL law with similar yet even narrower language than SF 23, holding it was an infringement on constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, stating ““People have intense moral, religious, and spiritual views about [counseling related to sexuality and identity]…. And that is exactly why the First

Amendment does not allow communities to determine how their neighbors

may be counseled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.”

Our own 8^th Circuit has been clear that speech is not conduct simply because the government says it is.

SF 23’s consumer fraud provision makes this bill the most expansive counseling censorship bill in the country. The bills vague and overly broad language leave counselors, clients, and all others expected to comply with the prohibitions confused about what is actually prohibited.

However, under the proposed bill, faith-based organizations engaging in faith-driven activities could be subjected to severe legal consequences and ruinous lawsuits. 

Minnesotans of diverse faith backgrounds will be caught between liability under the law and strong moral convictions. 

Further, these provisions are unnecessary, as current Minnesota law already holds licensed professionals accountable.

There is no justification for legislation that violates Minnesotan’s freedom of speech in a very private setting, while imposing severe legal consequences for Minnesotans who simply want to live consistent with their deeply held beliefs.

From June 2022: Vice President Pence praised the work of True North Legal in a video released by Minnesota Family Council.

True North Legal worked with Vice President Pence’s organization, Advancing American Freedom, to submit an Amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson, urging the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

On December 5, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in graphic designer Lorie Smith’s case, 303 Creative v. Elenis. At stake is whether artists—indeed all Americans—will be free to say what they believe without fear of government punishment. Lorie’s case has become even more important after the Senate’s shameful vote last week on the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill which demonstrates that officials at the highest level of government are increasing hostile to free speech and religious liberty. No one should be forced to say something they don’t believe, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of speech of all Americans in 303 Creative. 

True North Legal, Reason for Life, and Iowa’s Family Leader filed an amicus brief in support of 303 Creative, which you can read HERE. In this short video, hear True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson discuss the case with Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Matt Sharp.

Some of you probably saw recent headlines about the Peace Officer Licensing Standards and Training (POST) Board’s proposed revisions to its rules relating to peace officer education and licensing. Unfortunately, it is clear that these proposed revisions to the rules significantly infringe on religious freedom as well as other rights protected under United States and Minnesota constitutions.

In the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), the POST Board claims these rules are necessary in order tostop the “…continued erosion of the public’s trust of law enforcement officers and agencies because [of] officers’ discriminatory conduct, and officer participation in hate groups..” However, if passed these rules will do the just the opposite. In its current draft form, the POST Board’s new revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing of peace officers will create serious legal and policy implications affecting numerous peace officers across the state.

That’s why True North Legal (TNL), a legal initiative associated with Minnesota Family Council, along with other allied organizations, took the first step to oppose these egregious rules. We submitted a comment and request for a contested case rulemaking proceeding consistent with Minnesota law, and we are asking you to do the same. As further discussed, and referenced in the legal analysis provided in our comment, these rule as drafted are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.

Read our comments now:

July 19, 2022

Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training 

1600 University Avenue West Suite 200 

St. Paul, MN 55104 

Email: POSTrules.POST@state.mn.us

RE: POST Board’s Revisions to the Rules Relating to Education and Licensing of Peace Officers

Dear Members of the POST Board,

As [insert member of the public, organization, or name,] I object to the POST Board’s proposed revisions to the rules relating to education and licensing for peace officers. More specifically, I am concerned about the proposed revisions defining discriminatory conduct and related behavior. 

To be clear, [I/we] have a common understanding that no one, including peace officers, should engage in unlawful discrimination. However, these proposed revisions are extremely broad and offer no clear guidance to the many officers across the state that will be impacted by these proposed changes to the rules.

In fact, as currently drafted, the rules are clearly unconstitutional, violating the Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly and Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. It is for these reasons that [I/we] request a contested case rulemaking proceeding on the proposed revisions to the rule consistent with Minnesota law.

[name and address]

Renee Carlson is True North Legal’s General Counsel. The piece below is adapted from her legislative testimony earlier this week about parental rights, which you can view here.

Parents’ rights to direct the education of their children does not end when their child goes to school. But are Minnesota schools allowing parents to exercise that right? History is telling. Over the last decade local state agencies, educational organizations, lobbyists, school boards, and administrators have created policies that undermine parental rights. Consider these few examples: 

·       Minnesota State High School League’s (MSHSL) decision to allow males to play on female sports teams despite significant parent testimony opposing the board’s changes;

·       The Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) implementation of the Transgender Toolkit over the objections and concerns of many parents; 

·       The Public Educator Licensing Standards Board’s (PELSB) lack of transparency with regard to changing teacher licensing standards and cultural competency as statutorily defined. 

Practically, these changes opened the door to school policies that: Circumvent parental notice in matters relating to students’ physical and emotional health, discipline students for acting consistent with various religious and moral upbringings, teach students about sexuality and how to obtain contraceptives without parental knowledge, and allow teachers to use curriculum that would be considered pornographic in almost any other context outside of diverse literary content.

Nearly 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right and responsibility of parents over their minor children, especially in matters relating to their child’s education and upbringing, holding “a child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations…”[1] After all, as the Court later affirmed, “parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment.”[2]

Yet, Minnesota schools have implemented policies that starkly depart from this precedent, despite Minnesota’s recognition of the constitutional rights of parents. Minnesota’s regard for parent’ rights is clearly evidenced by one of the strongest educational opt-out laws in the country, as well as state statutes that require parental involvement in education. However, the spirit and intent of the law has fallen on deaf ears. Schools have continued to put in place egregious policies inconsistent with clearly established law regarding the role of parents in the upbringing of their children [3]. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court have become secondary resources for many decisionmakers when interpreting parental rights laws in this state. This leads to policies that contradict the law, often marginalizing parents who do not champion a school’s beliefs about gender confusion, implicit bias, general disparities, and sensitive family life issues. Even greater tension exists when a school’s actions directly contradict parents’ moral teachings, often based on strong religious convictions. 

The urgency for legislation is not based on hypotheticals. In the last two weeks alone, I have received inquiries from parents representing five different school districts across the state, including a request from fifty parents representing over one hundred students, concerned about a policy that the school plans to adopt, which allows students to change their sex, and determine their gender identity without parental consent if the school determines that telling the parent would put the student at risk. Unfortunately, the school showed little regard, if any, for these parents’ concerns, including immigrant and refugee parents who speak English as a second language, insisting the law requires the school adopt this policy.

Two weeks ago, I met a middle school teacher despairing over his superintendent’s directive to keep a child’s new gender identity hidden from the child’s parents. Lawsuits against schools based on similar situations are pending in Wisconsin and Florida.

Another parent informed me that her child’s teacher shared matters about her personal sexual preferences during class and encouraged students in various forms of sexual experimentation. The parent’s desperate plea, “I will drive clear across the country for help. I will do anything!” really drives the point home.

These are Minnesotans’ stories, and there are more. 

Certainly, schools face many complex and difficult decisions in our current culture. Moreover, schools have a legitimate interest in the education, health, and safety of children that will one day be adults in our society.

But respecting the rights of parents to direct their child’s education should be the easiest decision schools make. When schools decide to circumvent open meeting law, disallow or severely limit public comment, administrators will not return emails, and the Minnesota Department of Education, along with other educational organizations, and school attorneys counsel schools to implement policies that blatantly violate parental rights, the legislature needs to act. 

Legislation recognizing the supremacy of parental rights is not a partisan plot to micromanage schools and teachers. Such claims significantly devalue the commitment of parents to their children. Rather, this legislation is a response to the erosion of parental rights in our state, and the current policies that only drive a wedge between parents and schools. Therefore, we strongly encourage the Minnesota legislature to pass laws that restore parents’ rights to decide what is best regarding the education and upbringing of their children. 

___________

[1] Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

[2] Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979).

[3] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”).