On consideration of the petition for rehearing, filed on February 25, 1994, and the response, filed on March 14, 1994,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The petition for rehearing is GRANTED.
2. The majority opinion, Opinion No. 4049, published on February 11, 1994, is WITHDRAWN.
3. Opinion No. 4081 is issued on this date in its place.
4. The major modifications in the opinion follow:
Editor’s Note: Modifications incorporated for purposes of publication.
(e) The modified majority opinion on rehearing will be issued as a Per Curiam opinion since former Justice Burke did not participate in the court’s consideration of the petition for rehearing.
Entered by direction of the Court at Anchorage, Alaska, on May 13, 1994.
Before MOORE, C.J., and RABINOWITZ, MATTHEWS and COMPTON, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Swanner, d/b/a Whitehall Properties, appealed the superior court’s decision which affirmed the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission’s (AERC) order that Swanner’s policy against renting to unmarried couples constituted unlawful discrimination based on marital status. Swanner disputes the decision and contends that enforcing the applicable statute and municipal ordinance violates his constitutional right to free exercise of his religion under the United States and Alaska Constitutions. Swanner claims the AERC deprived him of due process by adopting the hearing examiner’s recommended decision and proposed order without itself conducting an independent review of the case on its merits and by failing to notify him that it would do so.
We hold that Swanner discriminated against the potential tenants based on their marital status. We further hold that enforcing the fair housing laws does not deprive him of his right to free exercise of his religion. The proceedings of the AERC did not deprive Swanner of his right to due process of law. We affirm the AERC and superior court decisions.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Joseph Bowles, William F. Harper, and Dee Moose filed three separate complaints of marital status discrimination in the rental of real property in Anchorage. The complainants alleged that Tom Swanner, doing business as Whitehall Properties, violated municipal and state anti-discrimination laws, Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.240. Swanner refused to rent or allow inspection of residential properties after learning that each complainant intended [277]*277to live with a member of the opposite sex to whom he or she was not married.
While Swanner did not specifically recall having conversations with Bowles, Harper, or Moose, he readily admitted having a policy of refusing to rent to any unmarried couple who intend to live together on the property. Swanner’s refusal to rent or show property to unmarried couples is based on his Christian religious beliefs. Under Swanner’s religious beliefs, even a non-sexual living arrangement by roommates of the opposite sex is immoral and sinful because such an arrangement suggests the appearance of immorality. It is undisputed that Swanner rejected each complainant as a tenant because of this policy and for no other reason.
A.Proceedings Before the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission
The AERC consolidated the three cases for hearing and appointed Robert W. Landau as hearing examiner on April 6, 1990. Landau conducted a hearing on October 9 and 11, 1990 and issued a twenty-five page Recommended Decision and proposed order in favor of the complainants on January 7,1991. He served the recommended decision to Swanner’s counsel and the AERC on January 7, 1991.
Pursuant to the AERC’s administrative rules of procedure in effect at the time, each party had ten days after receipt of the recommended decision to submit written objections. AMC 5.10.015(A). When the AERC receives objections, the regulations provide for its review of the record and modification of the recommended decision where appropriate. AMC 5.10.015(B). If the parties fail to object, the proposed decision automatically becomes final. AMC 5.10.015(A). Neither Swanner nor the AERC submitted written objections. On January 23, 1991, the AERC issued a memorandum stating that, pursuant to AMC 5.10.015(A), the parties’ failure to object to the hearing examiner’s recommended decision resulted in his proposed order becoming final on January 22, 1991. On January 31, 1991, Cheri C. Jacobus, AERC Chairperson, issued a Notice of Final Order which affirmed that the proposed order became final on January 22, 1991.
B. Proceedings Before the Superior Court
Swanner appealed to the superior court on March 8, 1991. Judge Karen L. Hunt heard oral argument on May 15, 1992 and issued a written decision and order on August 31, 1992. She affirmed the AERC’s decision, holding that (a) Swanner’s conduct constituted unlawful discrimination based upon marital status; (b) enforcement of the state and municipal anti-discrimination laws does not violate Swanner’s constitutional rights, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), and our decisions in Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068 (Alaska 1979) and Seward Chapel, Inc. v. City of Seward, 655 P.2d 1293 (Alaska 1982); and (c) the automatic finalization of the AERC’s decision did not violate Swanner’s due process rights.
C. Proceedings Before This Court
Swanner appealed to this court on September 18, 1992. He contends that the superior court erred in finding that he discriminated against the complainants on the basis of marital status. He claims that he does not discriminate based on marital status, but even if he. does, he is excused from compliance with the anti-discrimination laws because of his fundamental right to the' free exercise of his religion, guaranteed by the Alaska and United States Constitutions. He also claims that the automatic finalization of the AERC’s decision violates his due process rights under the Alaska and United States Constitutions.1
[278]*278II. DISCUSSION
A. Swanner Violated AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.2^0 by Discriminating Based on Marital Status
Swanner argues that he does not discriminate against individuals based on their marital status because he will rent to people who are single, married, widowed, divorced, or separated. However, he will not rent to those whom he expects will engage in conduct repugnant to his religious beliefs, namely cohabitation outside of marriage. Swan-ner considers such cohabitation to be fornication and immoral.
The AERC responds that the laws at issue do not recognize a distinction between “marital status” and “cohabitation.” The AERC claims the statutes’ plain language demonstrates that “marital status” includes cohabi-tating couples.
In Foreman v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 779 P.2d 1199, 1201-03 (Alaska 1989), we looked at the plain language of AS 18.80.240 2 and AMC 5.20.0203 and reviewed the intent behind the anti-discrimination laws. In Foreman, a landlord who refused to rent to an unmarried couple argued that the laws did not protect the interests of unmarried couples. Id. at 1201. We held that the landlord’s policy against renting to unmarried couples unlawfully discriminated on the basis of marital status. Id. at 1203. We reasoned that because the landlord would have rented to the prospective tenants had they been married, and he refused to rent the property only after learning the couple was not married, “[t]his constitutes unlawful discrimination based on marital status.” Id. The same reasoning applies here. Because Swanner would have rented the properties to the couples had they been married, and he refused to rent the property only after he learned they were not, Swanner unlawfully discriminated on the basis of marital status.4
[279]*279B. Enforcement of AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.2W Does Not Violate Swanner’s Constitutional Right to the Free Exercise of His Religion Under the United States Constitution
Swanner contends that enforcement of AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.240 against him has a coercive effect on the free exercise of his religious beliefs. He believes that compliance with these laws forces him to choose between his religious beliefs and his livelihood. He requests that we accommodate his religious beliefs by creating an exemption to the statute and ordinance. The AERC responds that “it is not Swanner’s religious beliefs per se which run afoul of our anti-discrimination laws, but rather his actions and conduct in a commercial setting.”
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...” U.S. Const, amend. I. The Free Exercise Clause applies to the states by its incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 810 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). It grants absolute protection to freedom of belief and profession of faith, but only limited protection to conduct dictated by religious belief. See Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (narrowing the scope of religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding a statute that criminalized peyote use, as applied to Native American religious ceremonies).
Swanner claims that we should apply the “compelling state interest” test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), to determine whether the laws at issue violate his right to free exercise of religion under the United States Constitution.5 However, in Smith, the United States Supreme Court expressly rejected applying the Sherbert test where the law being challenged is generally applicable, or, in other words, where the law is not directed at any particular religious practice or observance.6 Smith, 494 U.S. at 885, 110 S.Ct. at 1603. “[A] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (citing Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990)).7 “Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated.... [Fjailure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied. A law failing to satisfy these requirements must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Id. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2226.
The first step in determining whether a law is neutral is whether it discriminates on its face. “A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secu[280]*280lar meaning discernable from the language or context.” Id. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2227. Neither the ordinance nor the statute contain any language singling out any religious group or practice.
Even when a law is facially neutral, however, it may not be neutral if it is crafted to impede particular religious conduct. Id. These laws clear that hurdle as well. The purpose of AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.240 is to prohibit discrimination in the rental housing market.8 Swanner does not claim that the purpose of the laws is to discriminate against people based on religion; in fact, he contends that the laws do not even cover this kind of discrimination. Therefore, the laws satisfy the requirement of neutrality.
Additionally, these laws are generally applicable. They apply to all people involved in renting or selling property, and do not specify or imply applicability to a particular religious group. Therefore, at least under the general rule, no compelling state interest is necessary.
Smith provides one ground for judicial exemptions from compliance with neutral laws of general applicability. A court may exempt an individual from a law where the facts present a hybrid situation where an additional constitutionally protected right is implicated. Smith, 494 U.S. at 881-82, 110 S.Ct. at 1601-02. Like the appellant in Smith, Swan-ner does not contend that the laws in question here infringe on any constitutional right other than his right to free exercise of religion. Consequently, this case does not present sueh a “hybrid” situation.
We conclude that enforcing AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.240 against Swanner does not violate his right to free exercise of religion under the United States Constitution.9
C. Enforcement of AMC 5.20.020 and AS 18.80.24.0 Does Not Violate Swanner’s Constitutional Right to the Free Exercise of His Religion, Under the Alaska Constitution
Swanner does not dispute that the ordinance and statute are generally applicable and neutral under Smith, but asserts that “this decision does not mandate use of a less restrictive standard by state courts in interpreting state constitutional protection.”
Swanner is correct in asserting that a state court may provide greater protection to the free exercise of religion under the state constitution than is now provided under the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Roberts v. State, 458 P.2d 340, 342 (Alaska 1969) (“We are not bound in expounding the Alaska Constitution’s Declaration of Rights by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, past or future, which expound identical or closely similar provisions of the United States Constitution.”). Thus, even though the Free Exercise Clause of the Alaska Constitution is identical to the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution, we are not required to adopt and apply the [281]*281Smith test to religious exemption cases involving the Alaska Constitution merely because the United States Supreme Court adopted that test to determine the applicability of religious exemptions under the United States Constitution. We will apply Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068 (Alaska 1979), to determine whether the anti-discrimination laws violate Swanner’s right to free exercise under the Alaska Constitution.10
In Frank v. State, we adopted the Sherbert test to determine whether the Free Exercise Clause of the Alaska Constitution requires an exemption to a facially neutral law.11 604 P.2d at 1070. We held that to invoke a religious exemption, three requirements must be met: (1) a religion is involved, (2) the conduct in question is religiously based, and (3) the claimant is sincere in his/her religious belief. Id. at 1071 (citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 206, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533-34, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)). Once these three requirements are met, “[r]eli-giously impelled actions can be forbidden only ‘where they pose some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order,’ or where there are competing governmental interests ‘of the highest order and ... [are] not otherwise served-’ ” Seward Chapel, Inc. v. City of Seward, 655 P.2d 1293, 1301 n. 33 (Alaska 1982) (quoting Frank, 604 P.2d at 1070).
Swanner clearly satisfies the first and third requirements to invoke an exception to the laws under the Free Exercise Clause. No one disputes that a religion is involved here (Christianity), or that Swanner is sincere in his religious belief that cohabitation is a sin and by renting to cohabitators, he is facilitating the sin. However, the superior court held that he did not meet the second requirement that his conduct was religiously based because “[n]othing in the record permits a finding that refusing to rent to cohabiting unmarried couples is a religious ritual, ceremony or practice deeply rooted in religious belief.” Swanner’s claim that the superior court misinterpreted Frank v. State as limiting free exercise rights only to ritual or ceremony has merit. In Frank, we determined that the action at issue was a practice deeply rooted in religion. 604 P.2d at 1072-73. However, we did not intend to limit free exercise rights only to actions rooted in religious rituals, ceremonies, or practices. To [282]*282meet the second requirement, a party must demonstrate that the conduct in question is religiously based; this determination is not limited to actions resulting from religious rituals. Swanner’s refusal to rent to unmarried couples is not without an arguable basis in some tenets of the diverse Christian faith, and therefore, his conduct is sufficiently religiously based to meet our constitutional test. Although Swanner meets the three preliminary requirements to invoke an exception to the anti-discrimination laws, the analysis does not end here.
As discussed previously, a religious exemption will not be granted if the religiously impelled action poses “some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order or where there are competing state interests of the highest order.” Frank, 604 P.2d at 1070. The question is whether Swanner’s conduct poses a threat to public safety, peace or order, or whether the governmental interest in abolishing improper discrimination in housing outweighs Swanner’s interest in acting based on his religious beliefs.
In our view, the second part of the test adopted in Frank is applicable here. Under this part of the Frank test, we must determine whether “a competing state interest of the highest order exists.” “The question is whether that interest, or any other, will suffer if an exemption is granted to accommodate the religious practice at issue.” Frank, 604 P.2d at 1073. The government possesses two interests here: a “derivative” interest in ensuring access to housing for everyone, and a “transactional” interest in preventing individual acts of discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics. Most free exercise cases, including Frank, involve “derivative” state interests. In other words, the State does not object to the particular activity in which the individual would like to engage, but is concerned about some other variable that the activity will affect. This can be contrasted with a “transactional” interest in which the State objects to the specific desired activity itself.
For example, in Frank, this court exempted a Central Alaska Athabascan Indian needing moose meat for a funeral potlatch from state hunting regulations. The State did not object to killing moose per se (indeed, it expressly allows moose hunting in season); the State’s derivative interest was in maintaining healthy moose populations. In the instant case, the government’s derivative interest is in providing access to housing for all. One could argue that if a prospective tenant finds alternative housing after being initially denied because of a landlord’s religious beliefs, the government’s derivative interest is satisfied. However, the government also possesses a transactional interest in preventing acts of discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics regardless of whether the prospective tenants ultimately find alternative housing.
We look to Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1943), as an analogy. In Prince, the United States Supreme Court refused to grant an exemption to child labor laws for children distributing religious literature. As in this case, the state had a transactional interest: preventing exploitation of children in employment. Thus, the state objected to child labor, the particular activity at issue, per se, not to an effect of that activity. The state legislature had prohibited children from working under certain conditions. Therefore, permitting any child to work under such conditions resulted in harming the government’s transactional interest. This transactional government interest does not involve a numerical cutoff below which the harm is insignificant unlike in Frank.
Similarly, in the instant case, the legislature and municipal assembly determined that housing discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics should be eliminated. See Hotel, Motel, Restaurant, Etc. Union Local 879 v. Thomas, 551 P.2d 942, 945 (Alaska 1976) (“[T]he statutory scheme constitutes a mandate to the agency to seek out and eradicate discrimination in ... the rental of real property.”); Loomis Electronic Protection, Inc. v. Schaefer, 549 P.2d 1341, 1343 (Alaska 1976) (recognizing the Alaska Legislature’s “strong statement of purpose in enacting AS 18.80, and its avowed determination to protect the civil rights of all Alaska citizens”); see also AS 18.80.200; AMC 5.10.010. The existence of this transactional interest distin[283]*283guishes this ease from Frank and most other free exercise cases where courts have granted exemptions. The government’s transactional interest in preventing discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics directly conflicts with Swanner’s refusal to rent to unmarried couples. The government views acts of discrimination as independent social evils even if the prospective tenants ultimately find housing. Allowing housing discrimination that degrades individuals, affronts human dignity, and limits one’s opportunities results in harming the government’s transactional interest in preventing such discrimination. Under Frank, this interest will clearly “suffer if an exemption is granted to accommodate the religious practice at issue.”
The dissent attempts to prove that the state does not view marital status discrimination in housing as a pressing problem by pointing to other areas in which the state itself discriminates based on marital status. However, those areas are easily distinguished. The government’s interest here is in specifically eliminating marital status discrimination in housing, rather than eliminating marital status discrimination in general. Therefore, the other policies which allow marital status discrimination are irrelevant in determining whether the government’s interest in eliminating marital status discrimination in housing is compelling.
In the examples the dissent cites, treating married couples differently from unmarried couples is arguably necessary to avoid fraudulent availment of benefits available only to spouses. The difficulty of discerning whose bonds are genuine and whose are not may justify requiring official certification of the bonds via a marriage document. That problem is not present in housing cases: as this case demonstrates, if anything, an unmarried couple who wish to live together are at a disadvantage if they claim to be romantically involved.
It is important to note that any burden placed on Swanner’s religion by the state and municipal interest in eliminating discrimination in housing falls on his conduct and not his beliefs. Here, the burden on his conduct affects his commercial activities. In United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982), the United States Supreme Court stated the distinction between commercial activity and religious observance:
When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith, are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
Id. at 261, 102 S.Ct. at 1057.
Swanner complains that applying the anti-discrimination laws to his business activities presents him with a “Hobson’s choice” — to give up his economic livelihood or act in contradiction to his religious beliefs. A similar argument was advanced in Seward Chapel, where Seward Chapel argued that applying the city zoning ordinances to prohibit construction of a parochial school impermissi-bly burdened the chapel’s free exercise rights. 655 P.2d at 1299. We concluded that “there has been no showing of a religious belief which requires members of Seward Chapel to locate in [a specific place].... [T]he inconvenience and economic burden of which Seward Chapel now complains is caused largely by the choice to build in [a specific place] ...” Id. at 1302 (footnote omitted).
Swanner has made no showing of a religious belief which requires that he engage in the property-rental business. Additionally, the economic burden, or “Hobson’s choice,” of which he complains, is caused by his choice to enter-into a commercial activity that is regulated by anti-discrimination laws. Swan-ner is voluntarily engaging in property management. The law and ordinance regulate unlawful practices in the rental of real property and provide that those who engage in those activities shall not discriminate on the basis of marital status. See AS 18.80.240; AMC 5.20.020. Voluntary commercial activity does not receive the same status accorded to directly religious activity. Cf. Frank v. State, 604 P.2d at 1075 (exempting an Athabascan Indian from state hunting regulations “to permit the observance of the ancient traditions of the Athabascans”).
[284]*284“As [James] Madison summarized the point, free exercise should prevail in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace.” Michael W. McConnell, Free Exercise Revisionism, and the Smith Decision, 57 Chi.L.Rev. 1109, 1145 (1990) (citation omitted). Because Swanner’s religiously impelled actions trespass on the private right of unmarried couples to not be unfairly discriminated against in housing, he cannot be granted an exemption from the housing anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, we conclude that enforcement of AMC 5.20.-020 and AS 18.80.240 against Swanner does not violate his right to free exercise of religion under the Alaska Constitution.
D. The AERC Did Not Deprive Swanner of Due Process of Law
1. AMCR 5.10.015(A) is Not an Unconstitutional Delegation by the AERC
Anchorage Municipal Code 5.10.040 authorizes the AERC: (a) to hold public hearings; (b) to administer oaths and issue subpoenas; (h) to delegate to its executive director all powers and duties except the power to hold hearings and issue orders; and (i) to adopt procedural and evidentiary rules necessary to fulfill the intent of Title 5. AMC 5.10.040. The AERC’s power to “adopt procedural and evidentiary rules” is effectuated by promulgating municipal regulations.
Anchorage Municipal Code of Regulations (AMCR) provides the scope of the hearing examiner’s recommendation.
The hearing examiner ... shall rule on the admissibility of evidence and other procedural matters. On any question which would be determinative of the jurisdiction of the commission or of the culpability of any party, the hearing examiner ... may only make recommendations to the full commission.
AMCR 5.10.013(C)(2).12 Additionally, “[a]ll recommendations of the hearing examiner ... shall be consistent with commission decisions and regulations.” AMCR 5.10.-013(C)(4).
AMCR 5.10.015(A) states:
After a party ... receives the hearing examiner’s ... proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and proposed order, that person or his/her representative may, within 10 days or such other time fixed by the chair, present written objections to the commission. If no party files an objection within ten days, the proposal shall become final.
Swanner claims that AMCR 5.10.-015(A) directly conflicts with AMCR 5.10.-013(C)(2) because “[Section] 5.10.015 appears to permit the commission to adopt the hearing examiner’s recommendations without ever considering its content, rationale or rectitude.” He interprets AMCR 5.10.013(C)(2) as authorizing only “the full commission” to determine a question which is determinative of jurisdiction or of the culpability of a party; Swanner asserts that his culpability in housing discrimination was at issue. He contends that the AERC abdicated its responsibility by adopting the hearing examiner’s recommendation, and, therefore, the AERC violated AMCR 5.10.013.
Swanner is correct that the hearing examiner did not have the authority to determine Swanner’s culpability. Instead he had the authority to make a recommendation, which is exactly what he did. Hearing Examiner Landau made a recommendation to the AERC and the AERC decided to adopt it. Therefore, no conflict exists between AMCR 5.10.013(C)(2) and AMCR 5.10.015(A), and the AERC followed its own regulations in adopting the hearing examiner’s recommendation.13
[285]*2852. The Regulations Do Not Require an Independent Review by the AERC
Swanner finds fault with this process and complains that the AERC’s regulations do not grant it authority to approve a hearing examiner’s decision without conducting an independent review. No rule of procedure provides that the AERC must independently review the hearing examiner’s recommendations. AMCR 15.10.015(B) expressly provides for the AERC’s review of the hearing examiner’s recommendations after a party timely files an objection. Swanner did not file an objection; therefore, the regulations required no independent review by the AERC.
3. Due Process Did Not Require That the AERC Personally Notify Swanner That It Would Adopt the Hearing Examiner’s Recommendation Absent an Objection Within Ten Days
Swanner claims the AERC’s adoption of the hearing examiner’s recommendation violated his constitutional right to due process of law. Both the Alaska and United States Constitutions provide that a person shall not be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Alaska Const., Art. 1, § 7; U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. “Due process requires ‘that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be proceeded by notice ... appropriate to the nature of the case.’ ” Wickersham v. State Com. Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 680 P.2d 1135, 1144 (Alaska 1984) (quoting Mullome v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656-57, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). This court held “[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.” Aguchak v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc., 520 P.2d 1352, 1356 (Alaska 1974) (adopting Mullane language for analysis under the Alaska Constitution).
Swanner states that he did not receive notice that his failure to object to the hearing examiner’s recommended decision would result in the AERC making the decision final. He claims that he became aware of the AERC’s intent to approve the hearing examiner’s recommended decision the day after objections to the proposed order were due, when the AERC issued a memorandum stating the proposed order became final. Therefore, he claims he was not given “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [him] of the pendency of the action, as required by Alaska law.”
Swanner cannot claim that he was unaware of the pendency of this action. The actual hearing in this matter occurred on October 9 and 11, 1990, and Swanner participated in seven months of formal pre-hearing procedures and discovery. Swanner was clearly aware of the “pendency of this action.” Moreover, AMCR 5.10.015 was readily available to Swanner and the public from both the AERC and the State Law Library. Accordingly, the AERC did not deny Swanner due process.
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that Swanner impermissibly discriminated against Bowles, Harper, and Moose because he would not rent to them based on their marital status. The Free Exercise Clause of the United States and Alaska Constitutions do not permit Swanner to disobey the state and municipal anti-discrimination laws by entitling him to an exemption. The AERC did not deny Swanner his right to due process by following its procedural regulations.
The AERC’s final order and the superior court’s opinion are AFFIRMED.
MOORE, C.J., dissents.