Adoration Legal
Religious gatherings, especially smaller or unknown ones, may be subject to unlawful discrimination due to area codes and highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use regulation. Zone codes and heritage laws can illegally exclude religious gatherings in places where they allow theaters, meeting rooms, and other places where large groups of people gather for secular purposes. Or area codes or monument laws can only allow religious gatherings with the individual permission of the zoning board or landmark boards, and zoning boards or landmark boards can use this power in an unlawfully discriminatory manner. To address these concerns, the RLUIPA prohibits zoning and area marking laws that significantly weigh on the religious practice of churches or other religious gatherings or institutions, unless there are the least restrictive ways to promote an overriding government interest. This prohibition applies in all situations where: (i) the state or local government entity imposing the significant burden receives federal funding; (ii) the heavy burden adversely affects trade between States or the elimination of the large burden would have a negative impact on inter-State trade; or (iii) the significant burden arises from the formal or informal procedures of the state or local government to individually assess the use of an asset. In addition, the RLUIPA prohibits zoning and preservation laws that: (1) treat churches or other religious gatherings or institutions under conditions inferior to those of non-religious gatherings or institutions; (2) discriminate against assemblies or institutions on the basis of their religion or confession; (3) completely exclude religious gatherings from any jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably restrict religious gatherings, institutions or structures within a jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice can investigate alleged violations of the RLUIPA and take legal action to enforce the law. The Department can obtain interim relief, but not monetary relief. Individuals, places of worship and other religious institutions may also take legal action in federal or state court to enforce the RLUIPA.
In October 2005, the Forum published a detailed information report on the case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, which provides a legal and historical analysis of the issues involved. It can be found in pewresearch.org/religion/docs/?DocID=124. An addendum to the background information, analysing the Court`s decision and its potential impact on future cases, will soon be available on the Forum`s website, pewresearch.org/religion. While this Annex does not constitute an exhaustive treatment of all federal protections of freedom of religion, it summarizes the main constitutional and federal legal guarantees of freedom of religion and defines the legal basis for the principles of freedom of religion described in the previous memorandum. The case concerns a church known as Uniao Do Vegetal, or the Union of Plants, which preaches a kind of “Christian spiritualism” that combines Brazilian indigenous beliefs with contemporary Christian teachings. A central tenet of udv belief is the belief that hoasca, a tea containing the illegal hallucinogenic drug diemethyltryptamine (DMT), is sacred and that its use connects members to God. The Chief Justice also compared the use of hoasca to peyote, which also contains a banned substance, mescaline, but has been legally used by Native American tribes as part of their religious rituals for decades. If hundreds of thousands of Native Americans are allowed to use peyote for their religious ceremonies, Roberts wrote, “it is difficult to see how the same results alone can exclude any consideration of a similar exception for the approximately 130 American members of the UDV who want to practice their own.” The overriding interest requirement also applies if the accommodation requested “constitutes an exemption from a legal obligation requiring [the applicant] to begin with printed page 49675 in order to provide benefits to third parties.” Hobby Lobby, 134 p. ct., p.
2781, n. 37. Although “when applying the RFRA, courts must give due consideration to the burdens that a requested arrangement may represent for non-beneficiaries,” the Supreme Court said that almost any state regulation could be reformulated as a legal obligation requiring an applicant to grant benefits to third parties. Id. (cited Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 720 (2005)). Given that nothing in the text of the RFRA permits an exception for laws requiring a plaintiff to grant benefits to third parties, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, and that such an exception would have the potential to swallow the rule, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that RFRA arrangements are categorically unavailable for laws requiring plaintiffs to grant benefits to third parties. Hobby Lobby, 134 p.
ct., p. 2781, n. 37. Religious freedom is a fundamental principle of enduring importance in America that is enshrined in our Constitution and other sources of federal law. As James Madison explained in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Evaluations, the free exercise of religion is “by its very nature an inalienable right” because duty to the Creator “is a precedent for the demands of civil society, both in the order of time and in the degree of commitment.” [1] Religious freedom is not only a right to personal religious beliefs or even worship in a sacred place. This also includes religious adherence and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between the life of their faith and the observance of the law. Therefore, religious adherence and practice should be duly considered to the extent possible and authorized by law in all government activities, including employment, procurement and programs. The following twenty principles should guide administrative authorities and executive departments in carrying out this task. These principles should be understood and interpreted in the light of the legal analysis set out in the Annex to this memorandum.
A detailed statement from the Ministry of Justice on the RLUIPA land use regulations with questions and answers (13 June 2018) can be found here (a version of the “Questions and Answers” document with full legal citations can be found here). This table of contents is a navigation tool that is processed from the headers in the legal text of the documents in the federal register. This repetition of titles to internal navigation links has no material legal effect. The federal government`s approach to free exercise in the federal workplace provides useful guidelines for such reasonable arrangements.