re: #444 RogueOne

Stopped by bar owners which I find especially funny.

SpaceJesus needs to keep studying and some of you need to stop pretending religious facilities have a 1st amendment right to put up buildings where the rest of us don’t want them.

you are retarded. try learning some critical reading skills. also, shame on you for making me do this this morning when i have a hangover and am in no mood to lecture you on the law again. anyway as to your post,

New Church:
[Link: times-herald.com…]

this church was denied a permit because of traffic concerns.

Church Renovations:
Motives questioned when mosque building permit denied: Marietta, GA
[Link: accessnorthga.com…]

mosque wanted to put up a giant spire, a neutral ordinance against structures exceeding 25 feet in height was already in place. also, the city was very careful not to say it was done because it was a mosque.

Church denied special use permits:
Church sues city of Muskegon over denied permit
[Link: blog.mlive.com…]

the permit here was denied because the commissioners saw the area the church wanted to build in as being a commercial area not fit for a church. also the church had tax exempt status in area where nobody else has it (all churches have tax exempt status). it was not denied on the grounds that this church’s particular faith was offensive. this case still sounds unconstitutional to me though, OH WAIT, LOOK, IT WAS

UPDATE YOU LYING BASTARD:

MUSKEGON, Mich. — A Michigan church has reached a favorable settlement in a lawsuit filed by an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney against the city of Muskegon. The city planning commission had unlawfully prohibited the church from using a vacant car dealership as a house of worship but has now agreed to allow the congregation to use the building.

“Churches should not be singled out for discrimination by a city’s zoning restrictions or desire for tax dollars, and the city of Muskegon should be commended for understanding this,” said ADF-allied attorney Daniel Dalton, who represented Celebration Community Church. “Other cities should follow Muskegon’s lead in recognizing the rights of churches to worship on their legitimately chosen property.”

Immediately after the church filed suit in late March, the city asked to settle the case with the church, and both parties were directed into mediation. The city council approved the settlement on June 24, with the city agreeing to allow the church to use the contested property for religious purposes as the congregation originally desired.

why don’t you learn how to do some proper research before you go spouting off about your lack of knowledge about the law eh?

jesus christ man. what part of, “you can’t intentionally discriminate and single out a single religion amid others with a law harming them” don’t you understand?

again, read this supreme court decision if you still don’t understand why it is illegal to deny a religious group a place of worship based SOLELY on what sect or creed they are :

en.wikipedia.org

read this case and what follows it, and you might LEARN SOMETHING