Be the Bush Recovery Ministries is a long-term, faith-based rehabilitation residential program specifically for men who are recovering from addiction and other disastrous life issues. They seek to help men be them grandfathers, fathers, sons, brothers, and or husbands to do more than achieve short-term sobriety, rather they aspire to aid them on the road to long-term recovery from substance dependence. Be the Bush Recovery Ministries achieves this through building community support, offering biblical counseling, education, personal accountability, and job skill development. All of which aid in their overall recovery, revolutionizing their life and creating a firm foundation to prevent relapse. Be the Bush Ministries believes in the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to rescue, heal and transform men recovering from addiction. They see this as their civic and religious duty to help aid and be a part of the solution to the drug epidemic facing our country.
In 2021, Be the Bush Ministries had the opportunity to purchase 8 acres in Coffee County, Tennessee, located in a rural area. However, churches and religious organizations are banned under the county’s current zoning laws, besides general commercial areas even though similar, yet secular, organizations that offer the same services as Be the Bush Ministries are allowed to purchase, construct, and operate in these exclusive zones. County officials have made many outlandish claims in defense of their position specifically targeting Be the Bush, but in reality, their decision to uphold the exclusionary and discriminatory ordinance is solely based on suppressing religion, and the free exercise of Christian based aid, which is protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Because of these grievances Be the Buch Ministries filed a lawsuit against Coffee County for their hostility towards religion by thwarting their free exercise, and their reluctance to change the ordinance to be less discriminatory toward faith-based organizations.
The salient issue, in this case, is if governments, at any level, can exclude religious organizations from practicing their faith and or faith-based missions on land that otherwise anyone outside of religion could own? Further, and in doing so are said ordinances/laws unconstitutional? These questions are at the heart of this case, and once decided will set a precedent for what governments can and cannot exclude on certain properties.
The article by the ACLJ, ACLJ Sues County Over Discriminatory Zoning Ordinance Blocking Christian Recovery Ministry, it is detailing how Coffee County’s zoning laws are in violation of the United States Constitution, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. First, it is clear how the ordinance is in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, in regards to the Free Exercise Clause, because if they are not allowed to operate in a rural area that will offer them the space necessary to function, they will be confined to condensed areas/localities which will suppress the function of their ministry. Second, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, prohibits the government from inhibiting religious practices, which the ordinance is doing by creating a substantial burden by confining them to confined zones. Further, by imposing and implementing land use regulations in restricting religious organizations, Coffee County is violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, knowingly. This law was made for this specific purpose so that government bodies cannot discriminate against people and organizations based on their religious beliefs. Third, the Fair Housing Act is invoked in the lawsuit, because Coffee County violated this law by discriminating in creating housing based on religious beliefs and practices. Discrimination based on religion in housing is outlawed by the Fair Housing Act. Among other laws, Coffee County violated as the ACLJ cites in the lawsuit are the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I am firmly on the side of Be the Bush Recovery Ministry, the ACLJ, and their right to be able to base their religious operations wherever. No government entity should have the power to dictate where or where not a religious organization can set up its base of operations. It is wholly unconstitutional through the fact that it limits their free exercise, while additionally violating several federal laws protecting religious views, individuals, and organizations. I believe the Supreme Court would also side with Be the Bush ministries for these exact reasons and the sentiments laid out in the above argument.
2 comments:
I can certainly understand your argument for this case. However, based on previous cases I've researched and written about I've found that these kinds of zoning restrictions are very common. From what I've read there are usually specifically designated zoned areas for religious use as well. In my opinion, I don't find the county's actions unconstitutional. I do think the work that the organization does is valuable so I think a possible alternative explanation would be for the organization to seek out the areas that are zoned for religious use.
This is an interesting case, and I think you did a great job at stating your argument clearly. Although I agree with Peyton that zoning restrictions are common and each state has its respective zoning laws, I agree with your argument. I think this case is similar to the case Davis wrote about because they both ask multiple questions. In order to effectively analyze each issue, they should be looked at individually. In this case, I think the state has a more compelling interest in benefiting the community rather than keeping a religious organization from establishing a house of worship in a rural zone. I believe that long-term recovery and sobriety would benefit the community more than a house of worship in a rural zone would hurt the community. Essentially, I do think it is unconstitutional to limit the free exercise of a religious organization that does work to benefit the people in that community because of a zoning law. I disagree with your point that the government shouldn't dictate where a religious organization can set up at all because the zoning laws are in place for a reason and help to avoid chaos. That being said, if they clearly stated their needs and goals they should have been allowed to establish their place regardless of the zoning laws. I'd be interested to know if other organizations have asked for similar exceptions and if they were also denied.
Post a Comment