Opinion ID: 2040077
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Statutory and Constitutional Focus of the Human Rights Act

Text: Minn.Stat. § 363.03 (1984)  subject to a prefatory exception for bona fide occupational qualifications  contains a statutory subdivision declaring the following employment practices of an employer to be unlawful and prohibited discriminatory acts: requiring an applicant for employment to furnish information that pertains to religion, sex, or marital status (subdivision 1(4)(a)); refusing to hire an applicant for employment or maintaining a system of employment which unreasonably excludes a person seeking employment because of religion, sex, or marital status (subdivision 1(2)(a)); and discharging an employee or discriminating against an employee with respect to upgrading of position because of religion, sex, or marital status (subdivision 1(2)(c)). Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3, additionally prohibits denying full and equal enjoyment of the facilities of a place of public accommodation because of religion or sex, and a violation of this subdivision is declared to be a misdemeanor. Minn.Stat. § 363.101 (1984). The text of these provisions, in relevant part, is set forth in the margin. [20] The Minnesota Constitution deals in direct terms with the validity of the Human Rights Act, both in its text and as applied in this case. Declaring in its Preamble that it was ordained and established in gratitude to God for our civil and religious liberty and to secure its blessings for posterity, it guarantees in article 1, section 16, every person's freedom from control of or interference with the rights of conscience. By article 1, section 3, it guarantees the right of all persons to freely speak their sentiments on all subjects. The full text of these two sections of the Minnesota Bill of Rights is set out in the margin. [21]