Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: RLUIPA in the news - implications for 140GPR?


Status: Offline
Posts: 203
Date:
RLUIPA in the news - implications for 140GPR?







http://www.churchbusiness.com/hotnews/53h293056.html


Religious Discrimination Cases Throughout Chicagoland Will Be Impacted by Unanimous Decision by United States Appeals Court





Decision Changes Courses of Civil Rights Battles in Long Grove and North Brook Churches

Posted on: 03/02/2005






CHICAGO -- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently issued an important decision under the land use provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Acts (RLUIPA). The Court ruled that the City of New Berlin in Wisconsin discriminated against Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church’s free exercise of religion when the City refused to let the church use its own land to build a new church.



“The burden was substantial,” Judge Richard Posner wrote. “If a land decision -- in this case the denial of a zoning variance -- imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise…and that decision maker cannot justify it, the inference arises that hostility to religion, or more likely to a particular sect, influenced the decision.”



This court decision has implications for another trial related to the Village of Long Grove that is scheduled for Apr. 1. In this case, Vision Church United Methodist, a congregation of mostly Korean-Americans, alleges that Long Grove violated their constitutional right to build a house of worship. Vision had sought to become part of Long Grove by constructing a church on farmland it had purchased in Lake County and having its land annexed into the Village. After Long Grove rejected the Korean Church, the congregation then proceeded with its legal right to build under the auspices of Lake County.



Apparently to thwart Lake County’s approval of building plans, Long Grove then reversed course and forcibly annexed the Vision land. When the Church then reapplied to Long Grove for permission to build, their application was again rejected by Long Grove and Long Gove then revised its zoning codes to make it impossible for the church ever to get a permit on its land.



This decision will also have implications for Petra Presbyterian Church, a congregation of about 175 Korean Americans which owns a four-acre warehouse building located in the Village of Northbrook in an office/light industrial park. In 2000, prior to acquiring the building, the church had a preliminary meeting with the Village Board where the Trustees expressed approval of the planned use. Later, all six Trustees changed their minds and indicated they would disapprove the Petra’s building permit.



Knowing that Northbrook was discriminating against their church, the congregation finalized the property acquisition due to concern about losing their earnest money and other financial considerations. The case is still in court.



For the complete release or a copy of the Seventh Circuit Court’s ruling, contact Thomas Ciesielka of TC Public Relations, Inc. in Chicago by calling 312.422.1333.




__________________
This message is posted to the "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Internet Forum. Reproduction of this post on any other website is expressly forbidden without prior permission of the author.


Status: Offline
Posts: 410
Date:

Are there serious environmental implications with these properties? 175 congregants could hardly be compared with 6000+...common sense tells us that any reasonable person (ie: Fed Judge) looking at this from a logical standpoint will see the problems associated with a massive mega-campus being developed at this site. We will certainly need to be prepared when we present our side to the courts, thank god we have Marci! ( I do not believe these afore mentioned towns had her in the ring with them).

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 472
Date:

LOVE her!

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

Ultimately, which entity do you think has more muscle?  The {Becket Fund + RLUIPA + the Attitude that prevails in our Country about religion right now} or {Marci Hamilton}? 

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 244
Date:

We are not denying CC the right to buy. There's just restrictions. And it not just RT making these restrictions, it's the state of NJ & the Highlands Act.  So how is that discrimination? I think any building that is in an environmental sensitive area and with a road such as GPR should be limited.  Why they would want to spend so much on so little use is beyond me. But if money is no object to them...



__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

Quoting Thinker:


"And it not just RT making these restrictions, it's the state of NJ & the Highlands Act."


-------------


Hello -


The NJ DEP gave Ireland a Pass on this.  Guess that you did not know that.  Thus, it is RT making the restrictions despite the DEP decision to exempt the man.



__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 244
Date:

I do know this and I do know RT has filed against this action. If the DEP can grant this exemption without the facts then they are only opening up a can of worms. I do not know though what is happening with RT's appeal. And if CC can only have a certain amount of people with the CO then, yes, they get their CO withdrawn. Other places have been closed down for having more than their CO warrants. Is a religious entity above the law? I think not. Especially one that deliberately tries to be above the law.  If CC gets what they want because they are a religious body, then our laws are just a mockery.

__________________


Status: Offline
Posts: 1663
Date:

Quoting Thinker:


"Is a religious entity above the law?"


--------------------


Clearly, the answer to your question is YES!  There are many laws that apply to businesses and private individuals that DO NOT apply to churches.  As a matter of practicality, you just saw one instance of it occur when a church obtained an exemption from the Highlands Act. Do you seriously think that if you or I or a business asked for that exemption that we or they or it would have gotten same?  Answer: NO.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard