of the Establishment Clause may “actually [be] a free exercise question.” Hill-Murray, 487 N.W.2d at 863. Nonetheless, we will address the state’s argument. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, U.S. Const, amend. I, and no preference may be given by law to any religion or form of worship, Minn. Const. art. I, § 16. Exempting churches and church property from state laws that are otherwise generally applicable does not give rise to a violation of the Establishment Clause so long as no one religion is “favored over others and none sufferf ] interference.” State v. Am. Fundamentalist Church (In re Collection of Delinquent Real Prop. Taxes), 530 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Minn.1995) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 677, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1415, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970)) (<HOLDING>). The state has not identified any Minnesota
holding that establishment of christmas day as legal public holiday did not violate establishment clause holding moot a challenge to a florida tax exemption for church property when the law had been repealed holding that the endorsing requirement does not violate the establishment clause holding that denial of tax exemption for part of church property that was not necessary for occupancy and enjoyment of church did not violate first amendment holding that tax exemption for church property does not violate establishment clause