Opinion ID: 2191676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Minnesota Constitution provides:

Text: The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state   . Minn. Const. art. I, § 16. We have construed this provision of our constitution to afford greater protection for religious liberties against governmental action than the first amendment of the federal constitution. State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393 (Minn.1990). Although neither of the parties raises the issue, we take note that Hill-Murray has standing to assert the constitutional protections of article I, Section 16. See State v. Sports and Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844, 850 (Minn. 1985) appeal dismissed, 478 U.S. 1015, 106 S.Ct. 3315, 92 L.Ed.2d 730 (1986). The constitutional protections afforded to every man extend also to churches and their educational institutions. People of many different religions often exercise their collective beliefs together in the shared faith of their church. It would be counterintuitive to deny extension of religious freedom to churches and their educational branches like Hill-Murray. Because the Minnesota freedom of conscience clause provides more protection than the Federal Constitution, we will not follow the United States Supreme Court's limited analysis and will retain the compelling state interest balancing test. This test has four prongs: whether the objector's belief is sincerely held; whether the state regulation burdens the exercise of religious beliefs; whether the state interest in the regulation is overriding or compelling; and whether the state regulation uses the least restrictive means. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d at 398; State v. Sports and Health Club, 370 N.W.2d 844, 851 (Minn. 1985).