In August 2021, Alive Church (located in Prince William County, Virginia) filed a lawsuit against Prince William County for violating their religious freedoms and rights. The church agreed to be zoned as an “agritourism” facility when they stopped holding services at a public school. This was because they did not have the funding, and thus had to hold gatherings at this new property. The congregation chose to grow fruit trees, as well as make non-alcoholic apple cider in order to abide by the fact that they must be using the land for agricultural purposes. The church chose to be zoned as an agritourism property to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in changes to the property that the county would have required to be zoned differently. It is important to note that the zoning administrator approved the church as an agritourism facility. However, the administrator said that the church must acquire a liquor license to hold gatherings on the property. Alive Church does not promote alcohol, so they declined obtaining the liquor license. According to Virginia law, agritourism does not require alcohol sales. The suit is that the county is allegedly violating the religious freedoms and beliefs of the church under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The congregation was banned from holding services on the property unless they obtained a liquor license. This is a violation of the church’s religion, which therefore violates their right to free exercise of religion. The county wanted them to obtain a liquor license, however the church does not even use real wine in their Communion events, as well as the fact that they do not serve any other type of alcohol. The church argued that it was being discriminated against compared to farm wineries and breweries, both of which were allowed to hold events and meetings on A-1 (agricultural zoning district) Property. The outcome of the case was that the court rejected the church’s RLUIPA, Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly, and Equal Protection challenges. However, the ACLJ filed an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last week to challenge the original decision.
The main question of this case is: Is Prince William County violating Alive Church’s free exercise of religion by requiring the congregation to obtain a liquor license since they are on A-1 Property, even though they do not participate in activities involving alcohol? The answer decided by the court was no, however there are multiple angles one can take to interpreting this case. To begin, the fact that the church used to worship in a public school and moved to this property, one that that involves agritourism, automatically brings a few things into question. Did the church just grow fruit trees and make non-alcoholic apple cider to be able to worship on this land? Most would assume the answer is yes, but because they were not financially stable enough to worship somewhere else. This point in itself questions the sincerity of the church with regard to growing those goods.
The church feels that their rights are being violated because their religion does not encourage alcohol. However, since it is an A-1 Property, the point comes into question, is this discrimination occurring just because they are a church?
I believe there are a few religion and constitutional law topics examined and involved in the case. There is certainly a compelling state interest that can be argued. Some may think that the church should require a liquor license, because the property they are on technically requires it, regardless of the organization. However, since the congregation does not participate in the activities regarding alcohol, I do not see how this would be a problem that negatively affects other people. If people are not consuming alcohol, I do not think the church should have to obtain a liquor license, and therefore think it is a violation of their free exercise of religion.
Moreover, there is a slippery slope present here. If the church would have obtained the liquor license, this would set the precedent that all other organizations that are established and worship on A-1 Property must obtain a license, even if they do not consume, promote, or sell alcohol. Who do you allow to hold gatherings on this land, and do their religious beliefs matter? The issue lies within the fact that the church does not support alcohol, therefore why should they have to get a license to be able to have it?
I believe that the rights of the church are being violated by the county requiring them to obtain a liquor license since they worship on “agritourism” grounds. I think their gatherings are harmless, and do not involve alcohol. On the other hand, I do understand that it is tricky because the congregation decided to plant fruit trees and make non-alcoholic apple cider to comply with the A-1 Property requirements. Some people may question what the true meaning behind the trees being planted is, which tests sincerity. I do not think sincerity is threatening or harmful enough in this situation to force the church to get a liquor license. Yes, the land is supposed to be used for agricultural purposes, but the church technically has an agricultural purpose present here. They do not support alcohol, so therefore why should they be forced to obtain the license? I agree with the recent appeal by the ACLJ, since I did not agree with the court’s original decision that the rights of Alive Church were not violated.
Sources:
7 comments:
I agree with you in the fact that the church is technically abiding to all rules except for the fact that they need to obtain an alcohol license. With this, I believe that the state should not have the right to enforce an alcohol license on this property. To me, it seems beyond irrational and shows discrimination towards this religious group. I feel as though their exercise of religion is being impeded on in an unnecessary manner and therefore, the state should not require an alcohol license.
This is an interesting case. I am first a bit confused as to why all agritourism sites must obtain a liquor license...I am sure there are other instances, that aren't just churches, where a liquor license is unnecessary. I also wonder if the sincerity of their farming really matters. Like you mention, the sincerity of growing fruit isn't harmful to anyone at face-value. This church is simply trying to get by - and obtaining a liquor license is going to be more costly - and most importantly goes against their religion and values. I agree that their religious freedoms and speech are being violated, but I'm not sure how strict this Virginia law is and what it exactly entails. Even if they are being violated, they are the ones who chose to have their church located and zoned as an agritourism site. If that is the strict law, it is unfortunate but it seems like they might have to follow it...or choose to have their church zoned as something else and suffer the costs.
Thank you for effectively breaking down the many different aspects of the case, it seems complex and unusual. The matter of zoning is really interesting, because with my limited knowledge of zoning it seems strange that the church was granted the agritourism site in the first place. Yet since they were granted that zone, I believe they should have to follow all the rules of the zoning laws under that category. If they were to be granted a religious exemption it would violate the neutrality of zoning laws entirely. There are specific religious zoning properties that can and should be used by religious practices to be granted all of their freedoms, but an agritourism facility is not and therefore does not need to provide government exemptions. They do not need to run an agritourism facility, they are not granted this specific right in the Constitution, and therefore no rights have been violated.
This is definitely an interesting case because of its complexity and many levels. I am a bit confused as to the reasoning for them being described as "agritourism" in the first place. Is it because this is at the forefront of their religion? Or is it a loophole in order to get funding? In this case, I think it is interesting to look at this from the perspective of sincerity, though I do not fully think we should be judging the sincerity of anyones religion. For this reason I think that I agree with Sam that the Church's rights were not violated and that they should have to obtain a license.
I actually want to push back against Sam's opinion on this case. While I do think that Alive Church's activity is harmless I don't think the county is obligated to give them an exemption from the zoning laws. The reason I say this is because they aren't a church. the members of this church have the right to practice as much as they want but if they are not in a financial situation to fund a place of worship it is not the state's obligation to make sure that happens. They are bending the rules in order to have a church that's not a church, to begin with. if they are sincere in this being a business and not a church then they have to abide by all zoning laws. Though personally, I find no issue with their activities, they are not entitled to an exemption.
I agree with Davis's point above. I do not think that the Church should receive an exemption. They were approved to be an agritourism facility because of where they were zoned. Each zoning area has specific requirements and I believe the Church is required to meet those requirements. Giving the church an exemption would not be neutral between religion and non-religion. There are areas specifically designated for religious facilities. If they choose to have their facility in a different zone, they must follows the laws that were put in place for that zone. If they do not want to get a liquor license then they should not be in that zoning area.
When I originally read this case, I agreed with Sam's opinion. However, after reading Davis and Reid's comments above, I agree with them that I do not think the church should have an exemption. In this case, it is a form of discrimination, as Reid mentioned, between religion and non-religion. As indicated in the case, any company under this zoning law must have a liquor license, whether they use alcohol or not. If the church received an exemption, it would be unfair to non-religious institutions that also didn't use alcohol but had to apply for one. I also agree that they could practice at another location because farming does not seem to be integral to their practices (considering that they used to practice at a public school).
Post a Comment