No Special Treatment for Congregations When Private Developers Covet Their Land

Two Brooklyn Law professors have written a paper in the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) proposing that the Religious Land Use statute enacted by a previous (Republican) Congress merely protects congregations from unfavorable zoning changes and landmark designation, but should present no obstacle to taking church property by condemnation.

The issue is more urgent nowadays because of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which could make the congregations vulnerable to involuntary takings for the use of commercial land developers or hostile secular nonprofit competitors.

SSRN's abstract of the article is reproduced below.

Condemning Religion: The Political Economy of RLUIPA

Christopher Serkin
Brooklyn Law School
Nelson Tebbe
Brooklyn Law School

Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 127

Abstract:
Should religious landowners enjoy special protection from eminent domain? A recent federal statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), compels courts to apply strict scrutiny to zoning and landmarking regulations that substantially burden religiously owned property.

That provision has been controversial in itself, but today a new cutting-edge issue is emerging: whether the Act's extraordinary protection should extend to condemnation as well. The matter has taken on added significance in the wake of Kelo, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed its expansive view of the eminent domain power.

In this Article, we argue that RLUIPA should not give religious assemblies any extraordinary ability to resist condemnation.

We offer two principal reasons for this proposal. First, the political economy surrounding condemnation is markedly different from that of zoning, so that broadening the law's protections beyond zoning to cover outright takings would be unnecessary and ineffective. Second, the costs of presumptively exempting congregations from condemnation are likely to be far higher than the costs of applying strict scrutiny to zoning.

In conclusion, we identify an important implication of our argument for the law's core zoning provision - namely, our proposal invites local governments to circumvent RLUIPA by simply condemning religious property that they find difficult to zone because of the Act. On the one hand, this gives local governments a needed safety valve while, on the other hand, requiring them to pay just compensation to religious groups.

Our proposal therefore suggests a powerful compromise.

Christian Therapist Fired for Refusing to Offer Homosexual Sex Therapy

Authoritarian Sodomy tightened its choke hold on Christian conscience in the formerly free United Kingdom this past week, when a British employment tribunal ruled that a national counseling service rightly fired counselor Gary McFarlane for declining, on grounds of Christian conscience, to offer sex therapy to homosexuals.

Can we dispense with the euphemisms here? What the Relate counseling service was demanding of this Christian counselor was that he generate revenue for the company by offering sodomy lessons to tragically confused clients. And you can be certain that the victorious corporation is tightening its vise on any Christians who remain behind after McFarlane's dismissal.

Gordon Rayner filed this U.K. Telegraph report at www.Telegraph.co.uk

Christian sex therapist 'refused to counsel gay couples'
A Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after he refused to give sex therapy to homosexual couples has lost his case for unlawful discrimination.
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

An employment tribunal ruled that the national counseling service Relate was entitled to dismiss Gary McFarlane after he said that encouraging gay sex went against his devout religious beliefs.

The decision prompted Christian groups to demand a rethink of religious discrimination laws, following a string of other high-profile cases in which courts have found against Christians who claim they have suffered as a result of standing up for their beliefs.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane in his claim, said the religious discrimination law was "in danger of becoming a dead letter", while the Christian Institute said there was a growing feeling among churchgoers that religious discrimination laws only applied to Muslims and other minority faiths.

Legal experts suggested the ruling had left discrimination laws in "a confused state" by giving the impression that "gay rights trump Christian rights" when they directly oppose each other.

Mr McFarlane, 47, brought his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked in March 2008.

The father of two had joined Relate in 2003 and had given relationship advice to homosexual couples in the past. But in 2006, after he qualified as a psychosexual therapist, he made it clear to his employers that his strong Christian beliefs meant he did not feel able to give sex therapy advice to homosexuals.

Fellow counsellors objected to his stance and claimed his views were homophobic, and in March 2008 he was sacked.

Mr McFarlane, of Bristol, claimed unfair dismissal against the Avon branch of Relate on the grounds of religious discrimination, but an employment tribunal panel unanimously rejected his claim, though the panel decided Mr McFarlane had been wrongfully dismissed as Relate had not followed the correct dismissal procedures.

The panel said Mr McFarlane's claim had failed because: "The claimant was not treated as he was because of his Christian faith, but because (Relate) believed that he would not comply with its policies and that it would have treated anyone else of whom that was believed, regardless of religion, in the same way."

Mr McFarlane's boss at Relate had said during an earlier hearing that he had been sacked because he made it clear that he would not abide by its equal opportunities policy, which states that all clients must be treated in the same way, regardless of sexuality.

After the ruling, Mr McFarlane said: "If I were a Muslim, this would not have happened. But Christians seem to have fewer and fewer rights."

Mrs Williams said: "The law preventing religious discrimination is in danger of becoming a dead letter. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious beliefs with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his beliefs."

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "A lot of public bodies seem to confuse ethnicity with religion and they feel they are able to challenge the views of Christians, but not those of minority faiths. It means Christians feel they are playing second fiddle to other faiths and the laws are not being applied equally."

Mr McFarlane was represented in the case by Paul Diamond, the barrister who also represented Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in worker who lost a grievance procedure in 2006 after claiming religious discrimination because she was banned from wearing a cross necklace over her uniform.

A spokesman for Relate said it had not yet received a copy of the judgement and could not comment.

Mr McFarlane's is the latest in a string of cases which have tested the law on religious discrimination. Last year Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, north London, won a claim for unfair dismissal after she was sacked for refusing to perform civil partnerships on religious grounds, but Islington council later successfully appealed against the decision.

In 2007 Andrew McClintock, a Christian magistrate, lost his religious discrimination claim after his employers refused to excuse him from ruling on cases in which vulnerable children might be placed with same-sex foster parents.

Homosexual Brownshirts Launch Wave of Intolerance, Menace in California

Homosexuals have launched a campaign of intimidation and retaliation against Christians who exercise their First Amendment right to support traditional marriage in California, according to a lawsuit filed by election lawyer James Bopp.

The New York Times reports:

“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”

So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information.

In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”

Hell to Pay: Intolerant Homosexuals Deploy State Government Against Principled Christians

There will be Hell to pay if churches in New Jersey, home of disgraced bisexual former Gov. Jim McGreevey, fail to accomodate and cater to homosexual "civil union" ceremonies on church premises.

Charlie Butts wrote in OneNewsNow.com last week that a Methodist Church camp has lost to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in a federal district court after two lesbians complained to the government agency that the church camp resisted their demand.

Lesbian couple wins suit against Methodist camp
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow
The Methodist Church has lost a round over homosexual unions.

In March 2007 the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association refused to permit two lesbians -- Harriet Bernstein, 67, and Luisa Paster, 61 -- to stage a civil union ceremony at the church-owned Boardwalk Pavilion, and returned their check for $250. Subsequently, says Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, the lesbians filed a legal complaint against group. However, Association officials countered that the decision was based on their religious beliefs.

"That didn't make any difference to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights," says Staver of the group that issued its determination on Monday. "They said there's no First Amendment defense here and in fact the church violated the public accommodation law in New Jersey," the attorney notes. "After New Jersey adopted the same-sex civil union law, no longer could the church allow its facility to be used in ministry to the public because to do so would open them up to these same-sex civil unions."

Staver says that puts the church in a quandary. "The church has really been put in the situation where the clash between the same-sex civil unions and the religious liberty is forcing the church to either violate its own religious freedom or open up its facility to the community," he points out.

The church lost a federal court decision dealing with the same matter, and that case is on appeal. The Camp Meeting Association is represented in the case by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued that a Christian organization has a constitutional right to use its facilities in a manner consistent with its beliefs.

Founded in 1869, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is affiliated with the United Methodist Church.