*1 Human the Minnesota ination claims

Rights Act.

Affirmed. RASMUSSEN, al., Respondents, et

Jeri GLASS, al., et Relators.

Tim

No. CX-92-1792. Appeals

Court of of Minnesota.

April 1993. Granted June

Review *2 (Beach Club). Club Deli Beach

Beach The premises, Club served food on its as well as delivering speci- food to within a customers delivery Respondent fied Midwest area. (Midwest) Health Center Women is a non-profit provides clinic that health care services, including abortions, to women its patients. Midwest is located within the delivery Beach Club’s area. employee On November an place called the Beach to Club order. told food She was the Beach Club longer to would no deliver food Midwest. employee informed director of Mid- west, respondent Rasmussen, Jeri Beach Club’s to the refusal deliver food telephoned Beach clinic. Rasmussen complained manager, Club and Glass, about restaurant’s decision. Glass informed Rasmussen that the Beach Club refused deliver food Midwest abortions were on the because Strahan, Minneapolis, for Thomas W. re- premises. Glass told Rasmussen lators. position had that abortion Glass taken Atty., Alfton, Minneapolis City Robert J. murder. was Atty., Hyatt, City B. Minne- Allen Asst. later, days Several Rasmussen contacted respondents. apolis, for Minneapolis Department of Human HUSPENI, by investiga- its Rights (Department). During Considered and decided FOLEY,* Glass, P.J., tion, Department and KLAPHAKE and JJ. contacted who Department the Beach Club did not

told the grounds on “the food to Midwest deliver OPINION intend and did not moral conscience” FOLEY, Judge. F. DANIEL against particular individuals. discriminate certiorari, contend a By writ of relators Rather, part of said the decision was Glass panel of the three-member relationship.” The to business a “business (Commis- Commission on Human charge of discrimina- Department issued sion) by concluding discrimi- erred alleged Glass tion in which Rasmussen against respondents on the basis of nated both the Beach Club discriminated argue the Commission creed. Relators on the basis of personally and Midwest she (a) defining the term “creed” to erred sex, The claim dis- creed and (b) include more than beliefs dropped. on sex was crimination based rights of infringing upon their conscience 9, 1991, con- the Commission On October We re- Constitution. Minnesota Only hearing matter. on the ducted a verse. hear- at the testified and Rasmussen Glass represented ing. party was Neither FACTS in an conducted hearing was counsel. mem- The Commission manner. gave rise informal At the time of the events which indi- Rasmussen action, owned, Glass and questioned bers Tim Glass to this relator cross-exam- party then vidually, each as The managed conducted business * VI, Appeals, art. judge Court of Const. of the Minnesota Retired serving appointment pursuant to Minn. 31, 1992, gave July the Commission issued party Each also On

ining the other. fact, findings The entire hear- of law and closing brief statement. its conclusions ing than one hour. order, took less in which it found that actions un- and the Beach Club constituted Glass that he hearing, Glass admitted At the the Minne- discrimination under lawful his restau- to deliver food from had refused *3 Rights The Com- apolis Civil Ordinance. Midwest, Mid- despite the fact that rant to that the Beach Club was mission concluded Beach located within the Club’s west was and that rela- “public a accommodation” explained that delivery area. Glass to Midwest was not actions fell within the definition of refusal to deliver food tors’ philoso- upon pro-choice Midwest’s in the ordinance. based “discrimination” set out upon Rather, was based phy. that, by refus- The Commission concluded refusal were that abortions ing to deliver food to Midwest because fact premises. Glass further ex- Midwest’s beliefs, pro-choice rela- its commitment food to plained that he would not deliver guilty upon tor was discrimination based premises. Howev- anyone inside Midwest’s upon findings Based its and con- “creed.” er, food to he stated that he would deliver clusions, the awarded a $500 Commission they if not inside employees were penalty. appealed Relators from the civil facility.1 the Midwest Glass also stated by petition order for writ of Commission’s employees he serve Midwest if would longer doing certiorari. Glass is no busi- restaurant, regardless of they came to his ness as the Beach Club. their view on abortion. regarding Rasmussen testified the na- ISSUES ture of Midwest’s business. She stated defining Did the err in I. provided range that Midwest a of health “creed,” Minne- the word as used in- patients, care services for its women Ordinance, apolis Rights to include Civil During cluding services. cross- abortion respondents’ political philosophical po- examination, ap- Rasmussen admitted that sition on abortion? proximately of Midwest’s business was 90% II. Does enforcement of the Minne- performance of abortions. Rasmussen apolis Rights as to relators’ Civil Ordinance pro- testified about her commitment to the refusal to deliver food to a business based position. choice She also stated Midwest’s oppos- upon sincerely a held belief provision of abortion services was based ing practices, business’s violate pro-choice philosophy. Rasmus- she, personally, sen testified that both and Minnesota Constitution?

Midwest, providing remained committed beliefs, in-

services consistent with their ANALYSIS abortions, cluding despite they the fact that I. great negative had deal of both received this court is picketing, protests The first issue before attention the form of and threats. whether relator Glass’s refusal to deliver Graham, hearing, during panel’s questioning Billy 1. At the MR. GLASS: If it were I would Glass, following colloquy occurred: go in there. you they CHAIRPERSON KABA: So would serve CHAIRPERSON KABA: If Midwest, called from they long people prochoice they if were as as you wouldn't have served them? were not in Midwest? MR. GLASS: That’s correct. I do want to people I MR. GLASS: would serve who were point out that if someone called from Mid- mean, prolife. people I I would not serve west and would meet me outside their door of prolife they were if were in who Midwest. It business, their I would deliver to them. nothing they had prolife to do with whether were While Glass’s that he would deliver as statement prochoice. hearing indicated was made at the time of the So, words, CHAIRPERSON KABA: in other business, longer and when he was no theless, none- you anybody wouldn’t serve in Midwest? totally the statement was consistent with MR. GLASS: Correct. during his attitude and conduct the relevant CHAIRPERSON KABA: Whether were pro-choice time as indicated his service of they just clients or whether went there—if persons premises. off Midwest’s they went in there— opinions.” principles and The Com- opposed he Mid- set of food to Midwest because pro-choice respondents’ abortions consti- performance of mission concluded west’s discriminatory practice “creed,” in violation tutes and relators position constituted Ordinance Civil them based had discriminated ordinance). We are convinced (Minneapolis that creed. refused to stated he it does not. Relator Glass contends the Commission Relator prac- of their deliver to Midwest “[b]ecause defining politi- erred in include doing add- (Emphasis

tice of abortions.” cal, sociological philosophical beliefs. statement, ed.) closing Rasmussen In her He as used in the Minne- argues organiza- “[y]ou picked an stated [Glass] ordinance, exclusively to apolis refers reli- doing you that was tion that determined agree. gion beliefs. We you agree with.” something that did *4 Also, added.) (Emphasis the Commission initially that issue has not We note this delivering to stopped Mid- by concluded Glass addressed the courts of before been abor- west “because no Additionally, legis- there is Minnesota. added.) Thus, best, at (Emphasis tions.” subject. The guidance lative on the deter- refusal deliver to Midwest is Glass’s to of word mination any creed or conduct rather than based on impression. of is an issue first “creed” by respondents. This system held belief Minneapolis The not define ordinance does analysis testimo- is consistent with Glass’s Minn., Minneapolis, term. See Code of and did serve ny the Beach Club would Ordinances, (1991) (definitions of 139.20 § persons the Beach Club’s pro-choice on Act, terms). The Minnesota Human pro- did premises and would and deliver ordinance is which persons premises.2 on choice not Midwest’s based, uses the term “creed” without also 363.01, defining it. See Minn.Stat. purposes One the stated of the Minne- §§ of (definition (1990) and of terms un- apolis is 363.03 ordinance practices). discriminatory fair prohibit all discriminato- prevent and [t]o race, color, creed, ry practices based on ques- is a of statute “The construction sex, origin, religion, ancestry, national subject and to de novo review tion of law harassment, including sexual affectional Crystal appeal.” City Police Relief of age, preference, disability, marital sta- City Crystal, Ass’n N.W.2d 477 tus, regard public assis- or status with (Minn.App.1991), pet. rev. denied for * * * respect public accom- tance 17, 1992). (Minn. Accordingly, Jan. modations. no the Commis- court owes deference to Minn., Minneapolis, Code of Ordinances question. the term sion’s definition of added). (1991) 139.10(b)(2) (emphasis § Kantrud, re See In refus- held Commission (Minn.App.1991). premises of to the Mid- al deliver food statutory general A rule of con on the west constituted discrimination construed is that should be struction words “creed,” defining “formula- “creed” as a commonly understood with their rules, consistent opin- epitome principles, tion or Crystal Police Re City meaning. ions, formally expressed precepts and and Ass’n, see also 730; seriously adhered to and maintained.” lief 645.08(1) (1990) (canons of Minn.Stat. § Commission found both Rasmussen Thus, phrases). construction words “adamantly pro-choice Midwest3 are considering begin analysis our providing we committed to women” as set out services, posi- meaning term “creed” pro-choice and their abortion dictionaries, case as well as law seriously maintained various tion “demonstrates a business, pro-choice, people can we in that 2. would not serve who involved Glass testified "I pro-life if were at were Midwest.” the issue because Rasmussen need not address is an individual. question may there be a whether a While itself, entity business rather than individuals 645.17(2) provisions,” Law see also Minn.Stat. Black’s § has considered the term. (1990)(legislature intends an entire statute Dictionary “creed” as defines effective), interpretation and that our to be faith, articles of formal [C]onfession reference “creed” makes the ordinance’s belief, any religious formu- declaration of ordinance, religion extraneous. The faith, and a la or confession of however, interpreted to make all cannot be system religious belief. its terms effective. Under Minn.Stat. 1990). (6th ed. Dictionary Black’s Law 645.08(1), undefined terms are otherwise Dictionary defines Ballentine’s Law also their “com- in accordance with construed exclusively terms as meanings of meaning.” mon The common belief. formal declaration [a] classes which discrimination other ordinary has no reference in its The word “color,” based, “race,” “ancestry,” and benevolent, philanthropic, or meaning, to separate, origin,” “national are not distinct organizations, secret or other- fraternal Therefore, nonoverlapping. the Minne- wise, though of moral character. even than one set of apolis ordinance has more (3rd Dictionary 289 ed. Ballentine’s Law provisions. The definition of duplicative dictionary cited Even “creed” used the Commission is broad multiple contains definitions of Therefore, enough to include un- except the last one all of which der the Commission’s definition of “creed” Commission, adopted by which was de- “religion” in the ordinance is su- *5 word religion fine “creed” within the context of perfluous. Alternatively, if the Commis- as definition of “creed” is meant to sion’s only system

1: a brief authoritative doctrinal formu- refer to a of belief rooted tradition, beginning religious la with such as the has words “Cre- in a do”, “Credimus”, believe”, adopted “I “We be- then rewritten its definition of lieve”, “A encompass only to define what “creed” to intended is held [nonreli- epitome princi- formulation or congregation, synod, gious] a Christian ples.” dictionary No or other reference church to be true and essential and ex- work which have examined limits the clude is held we what to be false belief 2: definition of “creed” in such a manner. portion liturgy that of a Christian in profession corporately which a of faith is Next, the from the we note that case law system recited 3a: a formulation or four states which have defined “creed” also religious religion faith b: supports argument that the term’s epitome sect c: a prin- formulation or definition should be limited to rules, ciples, opinions, precepts and for- Supreme Since the Minnesota Court has mally expressed seriously adhered to interpreted the word and maintained. statutory construction standards a defini- tion of religion Third New “creed” as limited to Webster’s International Dic- (1986).4 tionary 533 consistent with cases that have considered Because “creed” is commonly the term. religion understood to mean beliefs, the Commission’sbroader The issue in was first addressed Cum rejected. definition must be 129, 130, Weinfeld, mings v. 177 Misc. 30

We are that 36, aware under Minn.Stat. (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1941). N.Y.S.2d 37 In that (1990) “[ejvery case, 645.16 law shall con- upon be the court called was to deter strued, possible, give if effect to all its mine the definition of “creed” as was exclusively religious encyclopedia 4. Webster’s almost defini- Britannica discusses "creed” exclu- sively tion of creed is consistent with that found in in terms. See 3 Britannica 723 See, (15th 1989). e.g., Compact Finally, just other dictionaries. I The ed. we note that be- English Dictionary dictionary, Edition 600 cause a definition necessarily See, in a it is not Oxford (1971); Heritage Dictionary The American a "common” definition of the word. (1980); English Language e.g., Compact 311 The Random Ill The Edition Oxford (Revised College Ed.1984); Dictionary (1987) ("creed” English Dictionary House 314 169 defined Wagnalls Dictionary Funk and designation New Standard tape-print- as ”[t]he of an automatic Indeed, (1945). English Language ing Creed”). machine invented F.G. in Shucht Housing Law. This was also addressed York’s Public issue used New Rights, er Division on Civil 117 N.J.Su petitioners, Id. The issue arose when 406, 405, 42, per. (App. 285 A.2d Div. tenants, brought group public housing Shuchter, plaintiff In was a for refusal against an action their landlord to, pacifist organization opposed which was Id. They alleged to renew their lease. among things, other Nam Viet war. rent- the landlord’s refusal to continue that Id. Plaintiff attempted to rent a store member- ing to them was based their front, down, presumably but was turned Village ship in the Knickerbocker Tenants property unsym because the owner was Association, organization an which believed organization’s Id. pathetic to the right organize of tenants to and act brought Plaintiff a civil action Id. together their common interest. against property alleging owner dis argued dis- Petitioners constituted Id. crimination based creed. Id. of creed. crimination on plain Division of Civil dismissed Housing Commission ruled State Id. at jurisdiction. tiff’s claim for lack of petitioners, stating “creed” referred 407, superior 285 A.2d at 42. The court Id. only religious beliefs. The New affirmed, holding that the word “creed” as affirmed, County Supreme York Court rights legislation civil used the state’s had holding legislature that the York New holding referred to “the of certain beliefs “religion” “creed” intended the words Id. at respect religious principles.” Id. interchangeably. used 408, 285 A.2d at 43. N.Y.S.2d at 38. Augustine v. Anti-Defamation In New York The revised record B’rith, League 207, 213, Wis.2d of B’nai of 1938 State Constitutional Convention (1977), 550-51 the Wiscon clearly purpose indicates Supreme defined within sin Court incorporate amendment was to into Employment of the state’s Fair context *6 pro- the substance of these Constitution Augustine plaintiff Act. The was a Rights of visions the Civil Law and other fired radio announcer who was after he statutes, giving the cover- at same time on guests failed to control several his show respect age phases epithets for of discrimina- various with to all who used 209, Id. at African-Americans and Jews. existing tion which were dealt with in the appeal, plaintiff On 249 at 549. that, N.W.2d law. It seems obvious with this argued that defendant Anti-Defamation mind, purpose in the drafters of this con- League engaged in discrimination on had against provision discrimina- stitutional it a com the of “creed” when filed basis adopted merely all of used tion the words him of the state plaint against because of in the various sections the Civil Id. at by on his guests ments made show. Law, thereby formulating phrase the 210-11, at Plaintiff ar 249 549. N.W.2d race, color, pur- creed religion. or The “system any gued that “creed” referred give pro- pose of the declaration was to opinion,” just ground not those of belief or racial, religious and color tection 214, 249 Id. at at ed in N.W.2d in the discriminations. Nowhere debates Supreme reject Court 551. The Wisconsin slightest there even the indication that that, noting al plaintiff’s argument, ed the it was intended that word “creed” though general be defined in “creed” could any embraced beliefs other than terms, commonly accepted and “in its sense dictionary preferred in the definition omitted). Id. (citations The court conclud- however, does, religion.” refer [creed] argu- ed that could “subscribe to the 215, Id. at 249 at 551-52.5 The petitioners the word ‘creed’ supreme ment court the dismissal of affirmed beliefs, economic, claim, holding any plaintiff’s refer be that discrimination may political philoso- Id. political system the sociological.” or adopted by Augustine, Supreme the Commission in 5. the inition of "creed” In Wisconsin Court considered, present Augustine, expressly rejected, N.W.2d at 551. case. 249 and then the def- 514 Legislature. problems able

phy or was not actionable beliefs seemingly (citing myriad Id. are and inso- laws. involved discrimination state’s approval). judiciary. and luble Cummings Shuchter Washington Finally, in v. Eastern Riste 408, N.J.Super. 285 A.2d Shuchter, 117 at 302, 299, Inc., Wash.App. Camp, Bible 43. is no contention at There 1294, (1980), Washington P.2d mission Rasmussen or the stated beliefs of meaning of Appeals addressed Court facility of a of the Midwest was “creed” contained the Wash- the word argu was conceded at oral nature and this Against ington Law Discrimination. term “creed” is Finally, ment. whether the any statutory provision invalidated at issue “religion” in with the term used alone or relating property to real restriction written change the same sentence does or restrict the purports to forbid which creed, the word for words encumbrance, occupancy, conveyance, interchangeably mean reli used a specified lease thereof individuals 177 Misc. at gious Cummings, belief. origin, race, creed, color, national or with 130-31, at 30 N.Y.S.2d mental, sensory, physical handi- any cap. II. (quoting Wash.Rev.Code 49.60.224 Id. argued soundly could Even if it be omitted). (1980)) (emphasis affirming In in the Min that the term contained judg- grant summary trial court’s neapolis ordinance should be defined landowner, respondent ment to the nonreligious philoso this court to include “creed, first held that as used in the court phy by respondents that held Ras such as dictionary in its statute and common mean- Midwest, mussen this court would still system religious ing, refers to a beliefs.” required to reverse the Commission’s 302, (citing Augus- 605 P.2d at 1296 Id. at grounds. While decision on constitutional tine, 249 N.W.2d The court then ordinance is remedial in found that restriction contained be construed nature and therefore should land, respondent’s purported which deed Palmer, Bere v. 232 Minn. broadly, see La to restrict the sale of such land to members 203, 205, (1950); 44 N.W.2d Trav church, Assembly of God constituted Tufte, elers Ins. Co. on the basis of discrimination creed pet. (Minn.App.1989), rev. denied therefore, was void. Id. *7 19, 1989), (Minn. cannot Apr. a statute Both the “common rule” of stat- broadly so as to violate the state construed utory existing construction and the case 645.17(2) Minn.Stat. constitution. See holding supports law this court’s that the (the to legislature does not intend violate only of reli- definition “creed” extends to constitution). the state religious not, gion and beliefs and as the held, any any to beliefs contends that both the First Glass subject. adopt position We the articulated the Amendment to United States Constitu- Jersey I, the New court: tion section 16 of the and article Minne- Constitution, protect recognize being sota him from that the word “creed” has

We recently compelled to an accepted more been to associate with abortion embrace meanings activity other of a is in than those clinic when the of the clinic believe, however, context. We do not direct the free exercise of his conflict with reviewing Significant it is our as a function conscience. to the decision here that, noted, expand legislative previously court to enactment is the fact as even stopped of new in because trends the definition of the Commission concluded Glass delivering a word. Whether discrimination on the to Midwest “because Midwest moral, added.) philosophical, (Emphasis of social or abortions.” best, political activity values At the facility should be condemned or it was of the permitted among the citizens of this and not the belief of the director that Glass question opposed. is a properly State most answer- safeguarding rights the of the fact citizens.’ Notwithstanding Com- [our] issue, are, be, ruling not make a on this mission did State courts should first n under Rule may we this issue review line for of defense individual liberties Ap- of Civil 103.04 of the Minnesota system. Rules within the federalist pellate Procedure: Fuller, (Minn. 722, 374 N.W.2d State v. appeal from or review of an order the On omitted). 1985) (citations may any appellate courts review order I, 16 of Article section the Minnesota ap- affecting the order from which states, part: pertinent in Constitution appeal judg- peal is taken and on from involving any may ment review order right every worship of man to God affecting judgment. They merits or of his own according to the dictates con- * ** as any review other matter may infringed; shall never be science may justice require. interest any nor shall control interference added.) (Emphasis permit- The issue of conscience with the conscience be * * * in important not to be considered this ted, liberty too conscience but the case, Indeed, the facts raise issue. hereby secured shall not be so construed Department originally told Glass as excuse acts of licentiousness or to deliver Mid the Beach Club refused justify practices inconsistent with the grounds “the of moral conscience.” west on peace safety state. provide As courts” “some latitude and “all added.) (Emphasis rights of con- Where addressing the claims consideration” when conflict with other state science come into pro parties, that this issue was not se laws, language compels the courts to parties in an previously by the ex raised competing weigh balance the interests addressing plicit make manner does not our prevail. to determine which should order prior authority. the issue inconsistent Squarely presented then is the issue of City ex New Liptak State rel. 366, (Minn.App. Hope, yield 340 N.W.2d must conscience and whether Glass Furthermore, 1983). of con issue deliver food premises enter the Midwest fully by relators and employees science was briefed products to Rasmussen and the challenged by respondents. issue, ap To we resolve this Midwest. four-part to in ply test referred Hill- Deeply rooted constitutional Hill-Murray Fed’n Teachers v. Murray right is the law of Minnesota fundamental School, (Minn. High enjoy of con every citizen to “freedom T.K., science.” See In re Welfare of Al (Minn.App.1991). 91-92 part four-part test re- first though relators raise the issue of if determine quires this court to and state liberty under both federal enter proffered refusing reason for constitutions, analysis we limit will our premises sin- based due to the the Minnesota Constitution Hill-Murray cerely held belief. *8 provides. greater protection it See State v. Teachers, at N.W.2d Fed’n of Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 396-97 that his decision was statement Glass’s (Minn.1990)(unnecessary rely on federal meets this on “moral conscience” based provides state inde law where constitution requirement. pendent adequate which to Next, we must determine whether issue). supreme free exercise decide Minneapolis of the ordinance enforcement approved expressly ap this court has the exercise burdens proach: question that Id. There can be no supreme a court It is axiomatic that state the Minne- provisions does. Under interpret of- may its own constitution to ordinance, has two apolis relator Glass protection greater rights of individual fer with an He can either associate choices. In- does the federal constitution. than he engages in which state, entity that conduct deed, this highest as the court of offensive, compro- morally thus ‘independently responsible finds to be are we conscience, which Glass’s conscience, refuse and or he can mising his by the Minnesota Consti- guarded jealously and fined. of discrimination guilty be found under the tution, priority are entitled test, part the third Under Hershberger, this case. See facts Minne- city of whether court considers (Simonett, J., concur- at 399-400 overriding inter- compelling or apolis has priority we ob- Recognizing that ring). of the ordinance enforcement est in the did concede Glass respondents serve that it does not. We hold that at 866. issue. Id. interfere with hinder or nothing to either gov- limits the expressly 16 also Section Finally, facility. the medical activity of outweigh may interests ernmental his just exercised that Glass conclude we Only government’s liberty. right of “free- constitutionally protected against acts safety or peace or interest refusing to enter by dom of conscience” imposi- excuse an will of licentiousness premises of Midwest. religious freedom tion Minnesota Constitution. DECISION at 397. To Hershberger, defining erred The Commission emergency situ- not an this was extent that religion than include more “creed” to upon the ation, to enter relators’ refusal if Additionally, even rela- religious beliefs. create a threat premises does not a viola- did constitute tor conduct Glass's it consti- safety, nor does peace either Rights Ordi- Minneapolis Civil tion of the of licentiousness.6 tute an act arti- nance, protected under such conduct is I, es- 16 of the Minnesota Constitu- respondents have failed to cle section

Because is reversed Minneapolis Accordingly, has a the matter city of tion. that the tablish interest under the fine rescinded. compelling governmental case, we need not address facts of this Reversed. balancing test. part of the the fourth Teachers, 487 Hill-Murray Fed’n KLAPHAKE, (dissenting). Judge (where government estab- N.W.2d at discriminate public accommodation Can interest, compelling court must lishes one who refusing deliver food to alterna- a less restrictive consider whether objec- publicly proclaims strongly holds and exists). tive on abortion? tionable beliefs agree not whether we The issue here is Rights Minneapolis Human on the Based viewpoint disagree with the of either ordinance, Minneapolis Civil respondent Rasmussen relator Glass or af- “no.” I would answered Commission Rather, question concerning abortion. reasons. for two firm the Commission has violated the presented is whether Glass First, a constitu- have not raised relators refusing to city ordinance Minneapolis claim which freedom of conscience tional for the rea- premises of Midwest enter the ordi- the mandates of would circumvent sons he stated. nance, relators’ ac- and no facts indicate religious grounds. premised on testimony tions were upon Glass’s before Based Second, in the as used provid- he the word and the information ordinance, prohibit the defined to Department of should be Civil ed to in this case occurred investigation, we con- discrimination which Rights during its (1) per- the common opposition to Midwest’s because: clude that his religious be- includes more than product was the formance of abortions *9 liefs; (2) legislative construc- the canons conscience” and beliefs “moral (3) religion; limited to reject a sincerely held. tion that are persons exempting a law certain "conscience clause" in Web- clause in [A] 6. The definition of doing things prescribed for oth- from ers, certain Dictionary totally Unabridged ster’s is consistent religious or conscientious when have the conscience clause contained-in article with I, acts, scruples against performing as tak- such 16 of the Minnesota Constitution: section service, oaths, rendering military ing etc. The majority not been met. incor- equating cited test has cases as facts the the (4) rectly Minneapolis assumes that the ordi- inapposite; and are religion with creed imposes inherent burden on rela- remedial, nance an is human ordinance Any such on tors’ burden with compelling a construction consistent public self-imposed was their relators encouragement of than elimination rather to all in a offer to deliver food businesses discriminatory practices. entity specific area. an is involved Where freedom constitutional Should relators’ public they accept “the limits activity, in a com- relieve them from of conscience claim their own conduct as a matter of con- on Minneapolis ordinance? pliance with the superim- not to science and faith are Simply put, four-part in this Not case. .the statutory on the schemes posed which religious freedom conflicts test used where binding activity.” United on others in that support or does state local laws not with Lee, 261, 102 v. States 455 U.S. S.Ct. of the reversal Commission. (1982). I assume majority, cannot Unlike test, part And under three food relators’ refusal of deliveries that that, majority summarily concludes be- a grounded strongly-held was on does a cause relators’ conduct not create against abortion. The Com- religious belief safety, public peace City threat findings supporting this made no mission Minneapolis compelling has no or over- rela- theory. record shows that legal The riding interest in the enforcement of its previously food to Mid- tors had delivered posi- ordinance. This anti-discrimination knowing that Midwest west State McClure rejected in tion was reveals the true The record that abortions. Inc., Club, Sports & Health epi- an for relators’ stance was not reason McClure, (Minn.1985). supreme In personal caused phany, but embarrassment government’s compel- that held court encountering an unexpectedly relator eliminating in ling interest discrimination at the clinic for an acquaintance who was public providing equal access accom- It only after that encounter abortion. was outweighed burden on busi- modations relator Midwest from its de- that excluded comply the Minnesota ness owners livery Midwest confronted service. When Id. Rights Act. 852-53. Human exclusion, about the relator stated relator not my opinion, the record does In where and fur- he would deliver Midwest con- relators’ conduct was establish Midwest, apparently by informed anal- ther where relators’ burden science-driven and right ogy, that he “had a to serve self-imposed, freedom of conscience was Relator did not offer to deliver drunks.” fail balanced claim when must nearly hearing, until the to Midwest’s door in compelling Minneapolis’ interest City refusal, initial when years after two eliminating discrimination. in longer was no business. relator What, then, City Minneapolis did the for the support The record lacks factual public accommodation by prohibiting mean actions majority’s conclusion on “creed”? discrimination based only by been occasioned conscience. have Webster’s dictio- referenced best, is impermissible such a conclusion At ordinary nary a common and to determine worst, finding appeal. At is fact rejects defini- meaning. majority wrong. finding, or even simply Without tion, other definitions relying instead on claim, sincerely held strongly Webster, and then buttresses found also con- religious beliefs motivated relators’ special- found in choice with definitions its duct, Min- is between the there no conflict Yet, legal the issue ized dictionaries. neapolis ordinance and Minnesota Con- City intended Council what stitution, analysis and the constitutional lexicogra- not what in its use of ends. in a another time or phers understood at assume, majority, nothing if we as did com- Even There different context. ordinary specialized firmly were rooted pellingly that relators’ actions common Moreover, conviction, legal the Commis- part dictionaries. second *10 518 proclaimed ordinary- strongly publicly held be- on a and reliance common sion’s liefs, despite prohibition its is stat- broad dictionary definition consistent with construction, of There see legislative all kinds. is no discrimination

utory canons 645.08(1) (1990); this conclusion. reliance on a basis whatsoever for Minn.Stat. § dictionary definition is not. legal helpful defining case law in “creed” as Is Every in Minneapolis used ordinance? also con- definition is Commission’s support majority cites as for case which statutory inter- other rules of sistent with inappo- its narrow definition of “creed” pretation. By defining “creed” to include site to the facts of this case. Unlike the beliefs, the Com- just than more ordinance, which contains both correctly the term interpreted mission “religion,” the words civil have a broader definition than “creed” to in these interpreted statutes cases (1990) 645.16 “religion.” Minn.Stat. § prohibited only discrimination based (laws provi- give effect to all construed Division on “creed.” See Shuchter v. Civ- Taxation, v. sions); Gale Commission of 405, Rights, 42, il N.J.Super. 117 285 A.2d 345, 349, 711, 715 228 Minn. 37 N.W.2d (App.Div.1971) (interpreting 43 N.J. Stat. (1949) (statute should so that be construed (West 1976)); Riste v. East- Ann. 10:5-3 § superfluous, insignifi- void or no word Inc., Camp, Bible ern Wash. Wash.App. 25 Ginsberg Department also v. cant); see (1980); Augustine 299, 1294, P.2d 605 1295 138, 143 Training, 481 N.W.2d Jobs & League v. B’nai (Minn.App.1992) (every term statute Anti-Defamation B’rith, 207, 547, 75 Wis.2d 551 given meaning), pet, rev. should be for (1977). Supreme As the Court Wisconsin (Minn. denied Apr. 9, Like the explained Augustine: in “race,” “color,” “ancestry,” the terms specific “religion” “creed” and have over- There is no mention Fair terms [in meanings lapping synonymous Employment but not of discrimination on Act] Yet, in the superfluous ordinance. The Com- religion. the basis would be applied properly defini- any mission a broader that unthinkable conclude anti- statutory tion of “creed” under the rule of legislation pro- discrimination would interpretation that these terms should upon religious hibit discrimination based * * * superfluous. does, be rendered however, grounds. “Creed” abundantly refer to It seems Additionally, the Commission’s broad term, clear, therefore, definition of “creed” better serves the anti- in as used the Wisconsin statute means goals Minneapolis or- discrimination * * * system dinance. “Statutes are to be so construed * * * And, promote although as to defeat the rather than 249 N.W.2d at 551-52. purpose legislature.” Governmen- New York Public Housing interpreted Law Bureau, Borgen, tal Research v. Cummings Inc. prohibit did discrimination 313, 322, (1947). 760, “race, color, Minn. religion,” creed or based plain language The ordinance’s shows its legislative history stated the statute’s purpose prohibit public is to accommoda- “religion” the words and “creed” were engaging tions from in discrimination on a interchangeably. Cummings used variety bases, including wide Weinfeld, Misc. 30 N.Y.S.2d creed,

race, color, ancestry, (App.Div.1941). na- religion, legisla There is no such origin, sex, including history tional sexual tive this case. Neither facts harassment, preference, logic supports affectional dis- nor the the cited cases status, ability, age, status marital reversal. public regard to assistance. respectfully I dissent and would affirm Minn.,

Minneapolis, Code of Ordinances the Commission. 139.10(b)(2)(1991).1 To define “creed” as synonym “religion” imply is to Minneapolis City Council meant to al- non-religious, discrimination low based on 139.10(b)(2)

1. Section was last amended