From the list custodian RE: No Weddings or Funerals

[Volokh, Eugene]

        This is a fascinating question, but I think it would be best if the
thread continued on the RELIGIONLAW at LISTSERV.UCLA.EDU list (to which I
suspect most of you are subscribed; if not, just send the message
        SUBSCRIBE RELIGIONLAW yourfirstname yourlastname
to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.UCLA.EDU).  I say this simply because I know there are
some law-of-government-and-religion experts on the RELIGIONLAW list that
have decided not to subscribe to CONLAWPROF, and it makes sense for such
questions to call on their expertise as well as on that of the CONLAWPROF
members.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen M. Griffin [SMTP:sgriffin at LAW.TULANE.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 1:52 PM
> To:   CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject:      No Weddings or Funerals
>
> I recently mentioned the possible relevance of state RFRA's to zoning
> disputes in my Property class.  One of my students gave me the following
> news item dated Feb. 19:
>
> Portland, Ore:  Officials in a southwestern Oregon community have given
> their blessing to a new Presbyterian church.  But there's a catch: no
> weddings or funerals allowed.  Pastor Larry Jung said Friday that the city
> of Jacksonville is interfering in the practice of religion.  "Weddings and
> funerals are central to what we do," he said.  But the City Council said
> this is a zoning matter, not a spiritual one.  "You think you've got God
> on
> your side, you are exempt from zoning?" said council member John Dodero.
> Jung's congregation has been meeting in a building that seats 125.
> Membership has swelled, however, and there are plans to build a 400-seat
> sanctuary and an education building on a 10-acre site. The City Council
> granted a permit for the new church on the conditions there be no alcohol,
> no funerals and no weddings.  The conditions were imposed to keep
> increased
> traffic in the neighborhood at a minimum.  Jung, who is considering taking
> his case to the state's Land Use Board of Appeals, said Oregon is "one of
> the most unchurched states in the country.  We're definitely not in the
> Bible Belt."
>
> I hope they wouldn't need a RFRA to help them.  Since the conditions on a
> permit cannot be described as a generally applicable law, this violates
> the
> free exercise clause.  Right?
>
> Stephen M. Griffin
> Professor of Law
> Tulane University
> sgriffin at law.tulane.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000222/12f60130/attachment.htm