AZ town code bars religious assemblies in private homes???

[RoadKingLarry]

This should get interesting! I don't think it will stand up to being exposed to daylight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589385,00.html?test=latestnews

GILBERT, Ariz. —  The national Alliance Defense Fund says a town code that bars religious assemblies in private homes in the Arizona community of Gilbert is unconstitutional.

The Oasis of Truth church began meeting at Pastor Joe Sutherland's house in November and rotated homes several times a week for Bible study and fellowship.

A Gilbert code compliance officer hit the church with a violation notice after seeing a sign near a road advertising a Sunday service.

A zoning administrator told the church that Bible studies, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities are not permitted in private homes.

The Alliance Defense Fund's Doug Napier says no neighbors complained.

The Scottsdale-based group has filed an appeal with the town of Gilbert, contending its code violates the U.S. Constitution.

Now if it was just about posted signs I could see the city having a leg to stand on. If they infact have an ordinance banning religious gatherings in private homes then I hope the city leaders are smart enough to repeal it and not waste a bunch of money trying to fight it.

[AJ Dual]

Sounds to me like several "respectable" churches were well represented in city government, and wanted to prevent any "upstarts" from forming in the area.

Or, someone assembling in a private home did go beyond the realm of common sense and decency and the town reacted.

[RoadKingLarry]

If they are basing it on the size of any gathering being too large for a location they might get away with it, but the article specificaly states they are prohibited from religious gatherings.
Could be fun to watch how it plays out.

[AZRedhawk44]

Already resolved.

Gilbert Mayor was appalled that such a law was on the books and ordered his bureau-minions to not enforce it, until the City Council could address the situation and either strike or re-write the law.

I "think" the law was actually a Mormon-protectionist law to make it hard for Baptists and other Protestants to get a congregational foothold in the Mormon stronghold of Mesa/Chandler/Gilbert.  Got nothing to back up that assumption, other than the fact that there is a Mormon church every quarter mile, it seems.

There's one Catholic church in Gilbert, and a scarce handful of other Protestant churches at this point.  Mormonism has won and there's no need for the protectionism anymore, and it's also socially anachronistic.  Hence, it is being addressed by the City Council.

[vaskidmark]

As a matter of fact it might just be constitutionally legal to regulate, via zoning ordinances, where "church" services are held.  Issues of traffic, parking and the like can be regulated even against religious groups.  The town cannot relegate "church services" and related matters to a specified "church zone" but can regulate how much this group without its own brick&mortar home can impose on the neighborhood.

See http://www.justice.gov/crt/religdisc/rluipa_guide.pdf for some basics.   See also http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/religion-discrimination-more/religion-discrimination-federal-laws.html for a definition of religious discrimination that suggests the town may be on shaky legal ground : "A rabbi periodically holds prayer meetings in his home with 10 to 15 people. He is cited for zoning violations for operating a house of worship in a residential zone."

The problem is the article does not state the exact restriction being enforced against this congregation, and I'm too lazy to go look it up.  Until we know just what specific kind of jackbootery is being committed, umbrage may not be called for.

stay safe.

skidmark

ETA:  Hmmmm.  Seems there was something to get all up in arms about.  Seeing as how the mayor has the common sense to call a halt to attempts to enforce an illegal law and try to get things fixed, there may be room for a very humble "Sorry" from the town to The Oasis of Truth to be the extent of official response on both sides.  As for the "protectionism" matter - it seems that at least on the surface the need/desire for such no longer exists.

[RoadKingLarry]

WOW, looks like common sense isn't extinct in politicians after all.

[Marnoot]

I "think" the law was actually a Mormon-protectionist law to make it hard for Baptists and other Protestants to get a congregational foothold in the Mormon stronghold of Mesa/Chandler/Gilbert.  Got nothing to back up that assumption, other than the fact that there is a Mormon church every quarter mile, it seems.

There's one Catholic church in Gilbert, and a scarce handful of other Protestant churches at this point.  Mormonism has won and there's no need for the protectionism anymore, and it's also socially anachronistic.  Hence, it is being addressed by the City Council.

I doubt that's the case due to this:

A zoning administrator told the church that Bible studies, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities are not permitted in private homes.

As a Mormon I've had scripture study, church leadership meetings, and fellowship activities in people's homes. While the church building is used more frequently, it's not uncommon for such things to happen in someone's home.

[AZRedhawk44]

I forget what they call it, but Mormons have something every Wednesday evening here in Gilbert where the whole family/clan/whatever gets together for dinner and a mini-worship session at family homes.  These things get big, with 20+ people attending quite often.

A zoning administrator told the church that Bible studies, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities are not permitted in private homes.

Bravo Sierra on that one, Mormons do it in Gilbert all the time.

[Marnoot]

Bravo Sierra on that one, Mormons do it in Gilbert all the time.

As I said. That's why I doubt it was a "Mormon protectionist" law. Could very well be someone selectively enforcing it though.

[red headed stranger]

This was a case of an overzealous zoning official.  The "church" in question only has a total of 7 members.  The city officials are now in damage control mode. 

Here is an update to the story:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/03/16/20100316religionban0316.html

As mentioned in this article, Gilbert is one of those city that has taken code enforcement to an asisnie level. 

I "think" the law was actually a Mormon-protectionist law to make it hard for Baptists and other Protestants to get a congregational foothold in the Mormon stronghold of Mesa/Chandler/Gilbert.  Got nothing to back up that assumption, other than the fact that there is a Mormon church every quarter mile, it seems.

I live in the area, and this is a common opinion. There is a strong presence of LDS members in the city council, school boards, and in government jobs. (This does make a certain amount of sense due to the local demographics) This, coupled with a lot of CA transplants who are comfortable with a high level of regulation and HOA restrictions have created a perfect storm for a very authoritarian local government. 

As mentioned in this article, other churches have been harassed with minor code infractions.  Meanwhile numerous code variances have been unanimously approved for a soon to be built LDS temple.  Another example that often pops up is how hard it is for a place like an Applebees or Chilis to open in Gilbert due to the extra hoops and public scrutiny they make businesses jump through for an alcohol permit.   

Mind you, I am not Mormon or religion bashing.  However, Gilbert and a few other communities in this area have a remarkable authoritarian streak in a state that is largely quite libertarian and non-intrusive. 

[Balog]

I was married in a Protestant church in Gilbert. Haven't been back in years, but the LDS population in the Chandler/Gilbert/Mesa area is about as high as it gets outside of Utah afaik.