Or maybe many on here post things as fact they can't really substantiate. At the end of my first post, I said the article probably doesn't provide enough information to draw conclusions. I'm sticking with that unless someone provides some specific statutes or court cases that address this as it relates to mosques or churches. There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it.
And one can never be certain how a court might rule on such a highly specific set of circumstances as this. I'm calling it a gray area of the law until it's clarified by reference to statutes or a court case.
Of course it does. You have to use just a little common sense.
You said in an earlier post, "And many here keep saying the mosque is private property."
Of course it's private property. How many mosques or other places of worship are on public property? Here's a hint - ZERO (other than those built, staffed and maintained by the US Armed Forces). In this country (with VERY limited exception), property is either public (owned by the government on behalf of the people), or it's private - deeded and titled to a private individual, partnership, or corporation.
If it's private property - and it's CLEARLY private property - then the owner (and his designee) enjoy the full rights and privileges of any private property owner.
"There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it."
Again, think about what you're saying - you think that there might be a chance that plaintiffs in a lawsuit will win an injunction to tell a house of worship how it may exercise its fundamental 1A right. Does that seem at all likely?
To take the thought exercise one step further, do you think a woman could sue a Catholic church because the church wouldn't make her a priest? Does that seem likely? Of course not.
There are a whole host of Supreme Court cases where the Court affirms a private group's right to not associate, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) are just two that come to mind immediately. But, there are others.
The Church (or mosque in this case) enjoys a robust 1A right to limit, exclude or define its membership, as well as a robust right to define or structure its religious services, to include the gender segregation of those services. The police in this case did the only thing they could do, and what they were legally obligated to do - enforce the private property rights of the owner, and remove the trespassers.
He cited law, and I can give you an example of the application of such a law.
At my home church in Maryland, a psychotic individual in the congregation took opportunity during a pause in the service (under an inexperienced minister) to enter the pulpit and start ranting about how he was an angel and Jesus....(etc. etc.). At that point in the service a burly elder moved up beside him, and another came up, and forcibly removed him out of the service. The police were called and the man was arrested. I witnessed this from the pews and it was a bizarre event, especially since the church is quite big (sanctuary holds 700+) but, things like this do happen.
In regards to the Mosque: There is no weird application of “sharia” here and it’s silly to think so.
Why get upset over this normal application of OUR law when Moslems ARE involved in forcing sharia finance, preaching the overthrow the government, and have training camps for terrorists scattered around the USA? Something like 80% of the Mosques are financed by Saudi money too, and Saudi Arabia is where you get thrown in prison if you are caught with so much as a Bible!
Calling the police for a disturbance of any kind on private property (and yes, virtually ANY religious institution is, by definition, on private property) is nothing to worry about....especially when the really worrisome things as I mentioned above are really existent.