In Laurel, Maryland,
a church was attempting to become more
integrated with the community by selling its property and moving to the
downtown Main Street area. The minister felt it was his conviction to move downtown where he could
serve the local community, build relationships, and share his Gospel.
Redemption Community Church promptly sold its property outside the city and
donated a large portion of the proceeds before moving into Main Street.
However, once city officials heard of the news, they started changing the
zoning laws to make it nearly impossible for Redemption Community Church to
open its doors. These new zoning code changes would require Redemption Church
to submit an expensive and time consuming special exemption process that
secular organizations do not have to do. When the church trustees toured the
property in question, it was being advertised as ideal for multiple uses
including church and school purposes. Almost as soon as the property was
purchased for the advertised use, the zoning code changed to remove houses of
worship on less than one acre unless there was a special exception permit
application approved. The church tried to circumvent the new code by using
the space as a coffee shop called Ragamuffins that
could also function as a space for church services when the coffee shop was
closed on Sunday’s. True to the church’s mission of aiding the community,
Ragamuffins lent the space for community groups to use for meetings, yoga
classes, game nights, and music performances - but the town was not having that
either. The city sent the church a cease-and-desist letter threatening the
church with daily fines of $250 if it does not immediately stop all worship
gatherings. A complaint was noted that the city’s changes in code were not
neutrally applied and were created to target the church, and the case is
currently being brought to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
to stop the city from enforcing the discriminatory code.
In addition to being discriminatory
against religion, I also see this case as a violation of the free exercise
clause. The zoning codes were created specifically to target this church, and
to prohibit them from practicing their religion in a place that was advertised
as being ideal for church or school related programming. The zoning codes are
not facially neutral nor are they neutral in how they are applied, as they do
not apply to secular organizations. Thus, these zoning laws are specifically
targeting religious groups in order to keep them out of certain areas in the
city, which is blatant discrimination and prohibition of free exercise. This
might be a different case if the zoning codes were not created almost
immediately after the church purchased the property, but the timing of it only
serves to accentuate the reasoning behind the new codes. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
Senior Counsel Erik Stanley, director of the ADF center for Christian
Ministries said, “The government is constitutionally required to treat religious
organizations equally. Laurel officials allow secular groups such as cinemas,
theatres, comedy clubs, schools, and health clubs to locate downtown, but not
this small church that wants to serve its community. That’s not legal or
constitutional”.
9 comments:
I agree with Abby's opinion on this matter; it is extremely suspicious that zoning codes popped up just after the Redemption Community Church sold its property and decided to move downtown. Not just suspicious but clearly not neutral as zoning laws have never previously popped up in the addition of secular institutions to the downtown of Laurel. Especially if the building taken over is being used as a coffee shop, named Ragamuffins, paying taxes, it should be treated as any other business. The fact that the space is used for worship services on Sundays should not have influence on any official decisions. No community member of the Laurel downtown is forced to participate in Redemption's services if they would not like to. The church is simply more accessible to those community members wanting access.
It seems like the county is on a witch hunt to stop the church from moving downtown. I think if secular organizations had to adhere and commit to filling out the exemption process then there could be grounds to say, " well it affects all", but they are not be treated under the law as fairly as secular businesses. You said it well when you mentioned they were not facially neutral, and it especially makes religious groups unable to access their First Amendments rights to Free Exercise. The last quote is essential as well because they are not allowed own a coffee shop that serves the same role as a community center, basically. They lent the space out to individuals and they weren't just solely a religious business, so I think that is important to note.
I agree that the cities actions should be ruled unconstitutional. They are neither facially neutral or generally applicable. In the case Church of the Lukumi Babaly Aye v. City of Hialeah, the city of Hialeah, Florida pulled a similar stunt, using a city ordinance to ban animal sacrifice, which was a practice the church endorsed. While part of the case involved whether animal sacrifice was constitutional based on religion, the holding also set precedent that prohibits townships from creating laws to specifically prevent a group from doing something. The laws created must not only be facially neutral and generally applicable, but they must deal with a compelling government interests. In the Lukumi case, the government banned sacrifice, which was specifically catered towards the newly established church. In this case, it appears that the zoning ordinance was created specifically to deter the church from moving to the main street of Laurel, especially because it only changed the clause to prevent churches from operating a place of warship on a property under one acre.
I agree with Gabi's evaluation that the states actions violated the free exercise of the church. To start, the law in question unfairly burdens religious buildings. The state shouldn't act with hostility towards religion but rather, treat it as an equal. This law places an unfair burden on religious buildings by making it harder for them to exist and own property in the center of town.
If that wasn't enough, it is very clear that the amendments to the zoning laws were passed specifically to oust the church. This is a clear as day case of discrimination against a religious entity. Under the free exercise clause, I believe that the actions of the state, in this case, were inadmissible.
I'd agree with the assessment the codes violate the free exercise clause. As has already been pointed out, the zoning codes were implemented in a fashion that made it clear as to what institutions at which these codes were directed. As has been pointed out in many of our previous cases, such as Everson V. Board of Ed, the state should not act with hostility towards religion. This is a clear act of state being bias against religion. I agree the actions of the state in this case were unacceptable and should be overturned.
These implemented codes should be ruled unconstitutional as they are in clear violation of the free exercise clause; additionally, the timing of this case suggests these codes are also an act of discrimination. I would ask, however, what the town is arguing their reasoning for the codes that are set in place? I would be curious to find out if this is a compelling argument. Without this information, however, it is clear that the church has every right to exercise all religious freedom rights, in which the town has made impossible.
I agree with Abby's decision that the codes enacted after the church moved to the downtown location violate the Free Exercise clause. Because these new zoning codes were only enacted after the building became a church, and because the codes were only applied to religious buildings, these new zoning codes were not neutral in the slightest. As mentioned above, it is important that the state is not acting with hostility towards religion or religious groups which I believe it is in this case. I think that it is very clear that these codes are a violation of the state's power and that the zoning codes should be changed.
These timely enacted zoning codes are a clear attempt at regulating and hampering the Redemption Community Church from opening downtown. This, I believe, is a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The intentions of the church were merely to promote good faith and foster relationships among the community. Though I do see how the town views this as a slippery slope, they have no right to prohibit the church's free exercise.
Post a Comment