U.S. town banned Christians from renting, but suddenly ...
'Churches shouldn't be treated less favorably than other groups'
A South Carolina town has been forced to reverse its ban on churches renting its civic center for worship services.
The members of Redeemer Fellowship in Edisto Beach had rented the center several times. But the church proposed a new rental agreement and "the town council voted to reject the church's application and amended the facility use guidelines to ban all rentals for 'religious worship services.'"
With the ban now lifted, both sides have agreed to drop the legal action.
"Churches shouldn't be treated less favorably than other groups that want to rent facilities," said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb. "We commend Edisto Beach for lifting its ban, which was inconsistent with the town’s own statement that it welcomes 'civic, political, business, social groups and others' to use its civic center.
"Its previous policy that singled out one form of expression – worship – as inferior to other forms of speech was clearly unconstitutional. Redeemer Fellowship and its members have invested in the community for years, and we are pleased that the church will now receive fair treatment and equal access to the civic center."
The lawsuit had pointed out that the city even allowed an Episcopal church to rent a multipurpose room while refusing Redeemer permission.
Shortly after the lawsuit began, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case in favor of the church.
The lawsuit argued that the town's previously amended guidelines were inconsistent and amounted to viewpoint discrimination, allowing some groups "to engage in singing, teaching, social interaction, and similar expressive activities" while denying permission to others.
The Department of Justice argued the town was interpreting the Constitution backwards.
The DOJ's "Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction" in the case said the city's policy changes appeared to be singling out and banning "a category of constitutionally protected speech and religious exercise – religious worship."
"Indeed, the town's reading of the First Amendment is exactly backwards:
The town seeks to permit the content and viewpoint discrimination against religious worship that the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses prohibit and to prohibit the equal access for religious expression that the Establishment Clause permits.
The court should hold that Plaintiff Redeemer Fellowship has established a likelihood of success on its Free Speech and Free Exercise claims," the DOJ filing said.
No comments:
Post a Comment