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.”