Opinion ID: 2182764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burden on Religious Belief.

Text: Second, an individual claiming an exemption must show the applicable government regulation burdens this sincerely held religious belief. A leading treatise summarizes: [B]urden looks to the degree that the government's requirement will, directly or indirectly, make the believer's religious duties more difficult or more costly. L. Tribe, supra, § 14-12 at 1247, and [A] conflict that threatens the very survival of the religion or the core values of a faith poses more serious free exercise problems than does a conflict that merely inconveniences the faithful. Id. at 1246. An affirmative obligation or prohibition combined with sanctions is more burdensome than a denial of benefits. Bowen, 476 U.S. at 704, 106 S.Ct. at 2154; Yoder, 406 U.S. at 218, 92 S.Ct. at 1534. The burden on appellant's religious beliefs is the choice French was required to make between adhering to his religious beliefs  that living together outside of marriage is immoral  by refusing to rent to unmarried couples living together, or modifying his behavior to comply with the Human Rights Act. See Lee, 455 U.S. at 261, 102 S.Ct. at 1057; Thomas, 450 U.S. at 717-18, 101 S.Ct. at 1431-32. The distinction between public and private activities underlies freedom of religion cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the Minnesota Human Rights Act properly adopted a functional definition of public accommodations that reaches various forms of public, quasi-commercial conduct. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 625, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3254, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984). In Lee, the Supreme Court stated: When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. 455 U.S. at 261, 102 S.Ct. at 1057. We also recognized this distinction in Sports & Health Club: [T]he government has a responsibility to afford its citizens equal access to all accommodations open to the general public.    Sports and Health    is not a religious corporation  it is a Minnesota business corporation engaged in business for profit. By engaging in this secular endeavor, appellants have passed over the line that affords them absolute freedom to exercise religious beliefs.    when appellants entered into the economic arena and began trafficking in the market place [sic], they have subjected themselves to the standards the legislature has prescribed not only for the benefit of prospective and existing employees, but also for the benefit of the citizens of the state as a whole in an effort to eliminate pernicious discrimination. 370 N.W.2d at 853. While the scale of the public activity here is not as large as in Sports & Health Club, the legislature has drawn the line distinguishing public and private activity as it relates to rental housing by excepting the rental by a resident owner or occupier of a one-family accommodation of a room or rooms in the accommodation from several of the Human Rights Act's prohibitions, including marital status discrimination. Minn.Stat. § 363.02, subd. 2(1)(b) (Supp. 1989). We are not in a position to question or redraw this line since the legislature in its wisdom determined the exemption. The private activity exemption from the Human Rights Act does not extend to someone, such as French, renting property where he does not live. French contends this distinction says constitutional liberties do not apply in the public arena, but in reality by entering the public marketplace one is subjecting one-self to laws concerning public behavior, including anti-discrimination laws, that must be balanced against first amendment interests. There is no first amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Upon entering the public marketplace appellant could no longer consider just his rights and beliefs, but became subject to certain state laws and the rights of potential tenants. The legislature has not exempted an isolated sale or rental of property other than the property where the landlord resides. As respondent states the First Amendment does not bestow upon the individual an absolute right to require others in the marketplace to adopt those values as a precondition to doing business with him or her. Appellant is free, in his private life, to not associate with anyone whom he feels has the appearance of evil, but when someone voluntarily enters the public marketplace he may encounter laws that are inconsistent with his religious beliefs. While the Act imposes a burden on French's sincerely held religious belief that living together is sinful, such a burden is greatly lessened because it occurred only when French voluntarily entered into the rental marketplace  by crossing over the line drawn by the legislature  and thus subjecting himself to potentially burdensome regulations such as the Act's prohibition of marital status discrimination.