CBS: Federal Appeals Court Reverses 2012 Decision Allowing Bronx Church To Hold Religious Services At Public School

[Zguy28]

Federal Appeals Court Reverses 2012 Decision Allowing Bronx Church To Hold Religious Services At Public School

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/03/federal-appeals-court-reverses-2012-decision-allowing-bronx-church-to-hold-religious-services-at-public-school/

 

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — A federal appeals court in New York has reversed a 2012 decision allowing a small church to hold religious services at a public school.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that a city ban on religious services in schools is constitutional. It’s the latest development in a two-decade legal battle involving the Bronx Household of Faith. The decision struck down a lower court ruling that blocked the city from enforcing the ban. The lower court found that the ban violated First Amendment protections regarding free exercise of faith.

Rest at the link.

 

**************************

 

Now, since the city offers to rent the space to other groups, including non-profits, how is this not discrimination based of religious grounds?

[Larry]

Now, since the city offers to rent the space to other groups, including non-profits, how is this not discrimination based of religious grounds?

I can theorize. (And that's about what it's worth.

Yes, I have heard of at least one case in which the ACLU actually helped a church sue a public school, because the school (fearing that, if they allowed "prayer in the schools", that they would get sued by the ACLU) refused to allow the church to rent the gymnasium for services. The ACLU argued (successfully, but I don;t remember at what level. I really don't think it went to the SC) that, if the school allows secular groups to rent the gym (during non-school hours), then they had to allow religious groups equal access.

BUT, I'm pretty sure that that ruling wasn't from USSC. Which means that it certainly isn't binding, nationwide. (And maybe not even in that state.)

2) And, the quote notes that, in this case, it's not just some bureaucrat denying access to a church. In this case, there's a local law, forbidding it.

Appeals courts DO take laws into consideration, in their rulings. Said laws don't override the constitution. But they CAN (as I understand it) provide kind of a tie-breaking vote.

3) And, it's possible that the judge is just wrong.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Why can't they just hold their services at, I dunno, the Church? Seems like a crude attempt to "get 'em while they're young", but perhaps I'm missing the point.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Federal Appeals Court Reverses 2012 Decision Allowing Bronx Church To Hold Religious Services At Public School

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/03/federal-appeals-court-reverses-2012-decision-allowing-bronx-church-to-hold-religious-services-at-public-school/

 

Rest at the link.

 

**************************

 

Now, since the city offers to rent the space to other groups, including non-profits, how is this not discrimination based of religious grounds?

 

 

It's not discrimination based on a vote of 2 to 1.   Those in favor, Piere N. Leval appointed by Clinton, Guido Calabresi, also appointed by Clinton.  Those opposed John M. Walker Jr.   appointed by GHWB

[Zguy28]

Why can't they just hold their services at, I dunno, the Church? Seems like a crude attempt to "get 'em while they're young", but perhaps I'm missing the point.

First, churches are people, not buildings (despite the cultural understanding). Second, most can't afford their own facility. In cases like these, it has nothing to do with having an avenue to evangelizing students. Its a room to rent that is big enough to accommodate a group that is too big for a house. As an about to be church planter, this is of particular concern to me since that is one of our options is renting a public school gym.

I can theorize. (And that's about what it's worth.

Yes, I have heard of at least one case in which the ACLU actually helped a church sue a public school, because the school (fearing that, if they allowed "prayer in the schools", that they would get sued by the ACLU) refused to allow the church to rent the gymnasium for services. The ACLU argued (successfully, but I don;t remember at what level. I really don't think it went to the SC) that, if the school allows secular groups to rent the gym (during non-school hours), then they had to allow religious groups equal access.

BUT, I'm pretty sure that that ruling wasn't from USSC. Which means that it certainly isn't binding, nationwide. (And maybe not even in that state.)

2) And, the quote notes that, in this case, it's not just some bureaucrat denying access to a church. In this case, there's a local law, forbidding it.

Appeals courts DO take laws into consideration, in their rulings. Said laws don't override the constitution. But they CAN (as I understand it) provide kind of a tie-breaking vote.

3) And, it's possible that the judge is just wrong.

I wonder what would happen if they were refused a cake from a cake shop?

[Larry]

I wonder what would happen if they were refused a cake from a cake shop?

Depends on

1) Whether the city has a law, barring discrimination against churches.

2) Whether the baker claims it's because of his religion.

3) Whether it's a white cake.

[PokerPacker]

I wonder what would happen if they were refused a cake from a cake shop?

Is it a Gay Church?

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

First, churches are people, not buildings (despite the cultural understanding). Second, most can't afford their own facility. In cases like these, it has nothing to do with having an avenue to evangelizing students. Its a room to rent that is big enough to accommodate a group that is too big for a house. As an about to be church planter, this is of particular concern to me since that is one of our options is renting a public school gym.

Thanks for the explination. Wouldn't bother me.

[Zguy28]

Is it a Gay Church?

I don't think its high Anglican.