that a landlord may refuse to rent to unmarried couples because of his/her religious beliefs. He cites to decisions from Minnesota and California for the proposition that enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws against him violates his right to free exercise. In Minnesota v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn.1990), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a landlord’s refusal to rent to an unmarried couple did not violate Minnesota's anti-discrimination laws and enforcing such laws would violate the landlord's free exercise right. However, in French, the anti-discrimination laws at issue did not define or otherwise explain the term “marital status.” The court concluded that the Minnesota Legislature did not intend to include unmarried couples in the definition. Cf. Foreman, 779 P.2d at 1203 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Minnesota court relied on the
holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under  1983 through official policy or custom holding preempted municipal housing ordinance that would effectively remove persons from the city based on a snapshot of their current immigration status rather than based on a federal order of removal holding unmarried couples are included within the state and municipal prohibitions against discrimination based on marital status holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that notice statute applies to both municipal entities and employees of municipal entities acting within the scope of their employment