The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a similar situation in WatPro, 491 N.W.2d 1. In examining how consumer protection statutes can co-exist with the U.C.C., the court drew a sharp distinction between commercial parties and consumers. See id. at 7. Because the plaintiff church was not a “sophisticated merchant” with respect to the purchase in question, the court concluded that “[t]he transaction at issue here is an ordinary consumer transaction within the scope of state statutes regulating sales to consumers.” Id. at 8. Since the WatPro court had a claim under Minn.Stat. § 325F .69 before it, our conclusion that Marvin is a merchant with respect to window treatments quickly disposes of Marvin’s claim under that statute. See also Ly v. Nystrom, 602 N.W.2d 644, 647 (Minn.Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). The language and reasoning of WatPro also
holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct holding that  325f69 does not protect merchants holding rfra does not protect tithing holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president recognizing drug traffickers will commonly possess firearms to protect their product to protect their drugs to protect their cash to protect their life and even to protect their turf alteration in original internal quotation marks omit ted