With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding rfra does not protect tithing
B: holding that  325f69 does not protect merchants
C: holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president
D: holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct
B.