How the New “Equal Rights Act” Could Undermine Constitutional Freedoms
by Senator Jason Rarick

The freedom to practice religion is a cornerstone of our country and its founding, so it was disappointing when early on in the 2024 Legislative Session, it became apparent that recent changes made to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (HRA) undermined those freedoms, resulting in a blatantly unconstitutional law.

In 2023, Democrats made a small but meaningful change to the HRA – they split up the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” Though this may seem like a small detail, it meant that religious organizations could be sued for choosing not to hire individuals that did not match with their deeply held religious beliefs. Though these organizations still had an exemption for not hiring based on “sexual orientation,” that exemption no longer applied to “gender identity.” This caused concern for many organizations.

Luckily, we were able to find a solution towards the end of Session. We passed a bill that reinstated religious liberty and made it so that faith organizations could continue being exempt from potential discrimination claims. This was simply the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, there are concerns that this issue hasn’t completely gone away. I’m sure many have heard about Democrats’ attempts to pass a new version of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and even went so far as to pass this bill, SF-37 in the House. On the surface, it sounds like a great initiative, but the language they’re looking to pass is very damaging and the implications it would have on religious freedoms are severe.

If passed in the legislature, the ERA would be put on the election ballot and would ask voters, “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to say that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state, and shall not be discriminated against on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, gender, and sexual orientation?”

The most notable part of this ERA bill is not what’s included in it, it’s actually what was left out. Now it includes protections based on “sexual orientation,” but fails to include protections for “religion,” completely overriding all the good work we did to once again protect religious freedoms. This language expands the scope of the ERA far beyond its original intent by not only excluding religion but also using vague language to enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution.

Another troubling part of this bill is that because the language is so vaguely written and uses undefined terms like “gender expression” and “gender identity,” it would potentially undermine existing laws and programs that protect and promote services for women. For a bill that is meant to protect against discrimination, it takes steps to unravel all the protections currently in place for women who have faced discrimination throughout history. This is a step in the wrong direction.

It’s also important to note that Minnesota already has numerous legal protections for those who may face discrimination, which means this bill is completely unnecessary and is a clear abuse of power. Unfortunately, Democrats are hoping that the good name of the bill will be enough to keep people from considering the vast implications this language would have if passed.

The ERA is direct proof of why it’s so important that Minnesotans pay attention to the details and nuances of bills being passed. Though many of these bill titles and taglines sound great, once you dig under the surface, there are a lot of details that should be examined and vetted. The bottom line is that this new ERA will limit religious freedoms, will enshrine abortion in our Constitution, and will undermine efforts to have women-specific programs, services, and sports.

I want to be clear: opposing this amendment does not mean supporting discrimination in any way – in fact, it’s the opposite. Opposing this amendment as written is opposing discrimination against ALL, including people of faith. This is a dangerous bill, and I hope Minnesotans continue to pay close attention and ask critical questions about legislation like the ERA.