Minnesota’s congressional delegation voted for the bills except for Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Erik Paulsen.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act changes existing law cited in a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that cases of discrimination in the workplace have a 180-day statute of limitations in which someone can make a claim. Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for 18 years in Alabama, and she discovered just before her retirement that she had been paid less than all of the other men in her workplace. Because she didn’t have access to her co-workers’ salaries, she had no way of knowing that they were being paid more for doing the same job.

For that reason, she couldn’t have filed a discrimination complaint within 180 days, even though the evidence showed she did indeed suffer discrimination in pay.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg made that point in her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear: “The problem of concealed pay discrimination is particularly acute where the disparity arises not because the female employee is flatly denied a raise but because male counterparts are given larger raises. Having received a pay increase, the female employee is unlikely to discern at once that she has experienced an adverse employment decision. She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity.”

The Lilly Ledbetter Act changes that statute of limitations. Instead of having 180 days from the time a discriminatory action is made by an employer, employees would instead have 180 days from each paycheck. Each paycheck would constitute a new action of discrimination.

The Paycheck Fairness Act makes it illegal to reprimand employees for discussing salary and compensation; it also puts gender discrimination on par with other forms of discrimination.

The Ledbetter bill passed at 247-171 and the Paycheck Fairness Act at 256-163 with almost all Republicans voting against them. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said it didn’t have anything to do with gender discrimination, but instead handouts to lawyers. “It’s the first step to begin rewarding the special-interest allies who helped give the Democratic Party control of Washington,” he said.

Amy and Sarah Monson have been together for seven years and are raising a daughter together. They co-own a business, have joint finances, and had a commitment ceremony in 2002. They have drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and Sarah changed her last name to Monson.

The Rochester Athletic Club had a policy that only married couples could apply for a family membership package. The courts have said that since unmarried heterosexual couples also cannot get the discounted membership the policy does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. But the Monsons contend that since they don’t have the option to marry, they should not be compared with unmarried heterosexual couples who have the option to marry.

After four attempts to resolve the matter with the club, the Monsons filed suit in 2007, alleging a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the 1993 law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals denied their argument on Tuesday and upheld a previous Olmstead County judge’s decision.

The case highlights another instance of legal discrimination in Minnesota: Because the Monsons cannot marry, they can legally be discriminated against.

Even the judge in the original decision saw the flaws in the system. Judge Kevin Lund called the health club’s policy “anachronistic” and an “unrealistically narrow definition of family” that “fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons’ relationship,” a relationship that he said functions “as a loving family unit and would otherwise be married or have entered into a permissible legal domestic partnership if allowed by our Legislature.”

The Monson may appeal the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Monsons, a lesbian couple raising a daughter in Rochester, Minn., were denied family membership since they are not legally married in Minnesota. While they hold a Canadian marriage certificate, Minnesota law doesn’t give them that ability. They sued the health club under Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in housing, accommodations and employment.

In November, Olmsted County Judge Kevin Lund found for the health club but also issued a scathing rebuke of its policies. A heated comments section at the Rochester Post-Bulletin demonstrates widely disparate views on the merits of the appeal.

One unmarried man, along with several other commenters, took issue with the lawsuit and the responses are indicative of the balance of rights the case presents.

“OMG people give it up, if my girlfriend and I with 3 kids (2 hers and 1 mine) cannot get a family membership because we are not married why should two unmarried lesbians??? The judge was right to dismiss the case and the attorney is wrong for taking their money and wasting the courts time!”

Another commenter responded, “Cuz u can go today and get a marriage license and get the family membership rates, and their family can never get the family membership rates. The RAC needs to get into the 21st century and treat all families equally and with respect. If Rochester’s northgate health club, Family Y, and Mayo’s healthy living center can do it, so can the RAC.”

Indeed, that is the crux of the argument. Even Judge Lund, who rejected the Monsons’ argument, noted the harsh nature of the policy and the laws. Calling it “anachronistic,” he called the health club’s policy an “unrealistically narrow definition of family” that “fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons’ relationship,” a relationship that he said functions “as a loving family unit and would otherwise be married or have entered into a permissible legal domestic partnership if allowed by our Legislature.”

On Sept. 26 a white man in his 20s allegedly hurled racial slurs against Barnes in his church. According to Barnes’s wife, Dena, the pastor tried to calm the assailant, who used to attend the church, but that didn’t stop the man from physically assaulting Barnes.

“A fight ensued, 911 was called, both men went to jail,” said Dena. But what happened next ticked off many people, including some white residents of the town.

The attacker, identified only as “Allen” in a police report obtained by Minnesota Monitor, was released almost immediately on his own recognizance. Barnes, on the other hand, said he had to wait hours to see a judge before he was released.

“The biggest problem [in this town] is the police,” said Danny Barnes, “They don’t want me in this community. They don’t want my programs.”

Read moreA native of St. Paul, Barnes, 51, ministered in St. Cloud for years before he moved to Wheaton in 2004 to run his Pentecostal church, Thy Kingdom Come World Ministries. There he runs drug, alcohol and anger-management programs. He said he also works with people suspected of sex offenses.

By all accounts, his approach to treating people is controversial but fruitful. Stanley Gallagher is a native of  Wheaton and has been the town’s physician for 30 years. He said the procedures used by Barnes are disapproved by almost everyone in the community.

But, he said he has “personally witnessed [Barnes] doing Christian deeds that far exceed any other minister or lay person in the city… I’ve seen alcoholics recovering from drinking binges in his living room, vomiting and sick, and he has had them there for two to three days… I don’t know anybody else in town who would do that.”

Repeated harassment

Since he moved into the area with his wife, who is half Native-American and half German, Barnes said his church has been vandalized several times. One time, someone scrawled “KKK rules” on the church’s billboard. His car was vandalized and, he said, racial epithets are almost routine.

In all cases, Barnes said, the police identified suspects but no one was ever charged.

Repeated calls to the Wheaton police chief, to the Traverse County sheriff and to the county attorney were not returned.

“This town needs the Gospel — the true unadulterated Gospel,” said Dena Barnes, who said they moved to Wheaton because God called them.

People acquainted with Barnes say the frequent harassment and the isolation he feels have taken a toll on him and prompted him to easily lose his temper. A few months ago, Barnes was charged with head-butting a police officer. That case is still pending, and the country attorney offered him a shocking plea deal: 10 years behind bars.

Barnes denies the charges.

“That officer was not injured — not even one bandage,” said Gallagher, the physician. Still, “sometimes [Barnes] has an explosive temper. He would consider roughening someone up if they don’t do the right thing.”

But Gallagher said the charges against Barnes were always disproportionate. Wheaton, which has a population of nearly 1,800, has fewer than half a dozen blacks, and some older whites “fear the unknown,” he said.

Other churches

Wheaton has six other churches. Barnes says most of them don’t preach “the true word of God that repudiates racism.”

Interestingly, as other churches were losing congregants, Barnes’s church has been gaining. And though his programs might be controversial, people are trickling in for treatment.

And that discomforts other churches, said Gallagher. Drug abuse, alcohol and alleged sexual offenses — including incest — were considered taboo subjects until Barnes’s arrival.

“Most other churches were not addressing these issues,” said Barnes.

Whether there truly is an effort to drive him out of Wheaton or not, Barnes said that he intends to “either die there or in jail.”