Complete court ruling
(1.6 meg PDF)
Requires Adobe Acrobat.
Posted on 11/15/2002 12:53:59 PM PST by Utah Girl
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says a federal appeals court has trampled the church's rights to worship and protect its property, so it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect those rights.
Complete court ruling (1.6 meg PDF) Requires Adobe Acrobat. |
|
The LDS Church responded quickly Thursday to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' refusal to rehear the Main Street Plaza case, announcing it would appeal its case to the nation's highest court.
Among the reasons the church gave for the appeal was that its "first freedom" — the right to free religious worship — was being lost.
"Like all U.S. citizens, we highly value the freedom of expression which the United States Constitution guarantees. However, we also point out that the very first freedom mentioned in the Constitution is religious freedom," a church statement said.
When the plaza opened in October 2000, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley dedicated the ground as a sacred place of peace and reverence for church members. Situated near the Salt Lake LDS Temple, Tabernacle, Conference Center and church headquarters, the ground is sacred for church members.
"May this area be looked upon as a place of peace, an oasis in the midst of this bustling city," President Hinckley said. "May it be a place where the weary may sit and contemplate the things of God and the beauties of nature."
|
The church maintains it should have the exclusive rights to proselytize on the plaza. Additionally, protesting and any other behavior the church deems inappropriate should be kept off the plaza, the church maintains.
In 1999, the LDS Church purchased the block of Main Street where the plaza now sits for $8.1 million. To facilitate the sale, the City Council passed an ordinance closing the street between South Temple and North Temple. Former Mayor Deedee Corradini then sold the street to the church, which turned it into a pedestrian plaza.
The sale gave the church the right to control conduct, dress and speech on the Main Street block while guaranteeing 24-hour public access through the plaza. Access was ensured through a city easement. The LDS Church was also given exclusive proselytizing rights there.
With the First Unitarian Church as its client, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city and the LDS Church over the sale. On Oct. 9 a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court ruled the church's conduct, dress and speech restrictions were unconstitutional since public access was guaranteed.
While the LDS Church argues its religious rights are being lost, there are others who say it is the church that is trampling religious freedom. One is Baptist minister Kurt Van Gorden, who was arrested on the plaza earlier this year for distributing religious literature.
Speaking from his home in Southern California, Van Gorden maintains the LDS Church's attempts to ban religious proselytizing on the plaza violates his right of religious expression.
"The exclusion of free exercise of religion on a public easement for all except one religion is not freedom at all," Van Gorden said. "That action redefines the First Amendment and suppresses liberty."
Stephen Clark, the former ACLU attorney who still works on the Main Street Plaza case, agrees, maintaining that when Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson crafts time, place and manner restrictions for the plaza, he will be forced to allow Van Gorden and others on the ground.
"What the city can't do is allow Mormon missionaries to distribute literature (on the plaza) and throw a Baptist minister in jail for passing out religious information," Clark said.
The City Council is awaiting those time, place and manner restrictions. Anderson maintains those restrictions can solve much of the LDS Church's concerns about the plaza. The time, place and manner rules can regulate free speech but not violate the First Amendment.
Anderson said he will take into account that the plaza rests directly next to the Salt Lake LDS Temple, possibly the most revered spot on Earth for LDS faithful.
Given the locale, Anderson indicated the time, place and manner restrictions might be more stringent than they would be at other spots in the city.
The City Council will have to ratify any time, place and manner rules, and Council Chairman Dave Buhler said council members look forward to working with the mayor.
Meanwhile, the council plans a December public hearing on whether the public wants the council to give up the city's easement on Main Street Plaza.
The council maintains it can amend the ordinance created to close Main Street and retract the portions that called for a public right-of-way easement. Without an easement, the council believes there would be no free-speech requirement and the LDS Church would again be able to enact its restrictions.
Ceding the easement to the church was one solution suggested in the 10th Circuit ruling. Anderson has acknowledged that possibility.
But Anderson maintains it was the sale contract, not the ordinance to close the street, that created the easement. Since any sale of real property is the authority of the mayor, Anderson says it is his decision alone to keep or relinquish the easement. He won't cede the easement since both the city and church knew the plaza restrictions could be ruled unconstitutional but made the deal anyway, Anderson said.
The dispute between Anderson and the City Council is causing a stir at City Hall that both sides are trying to keep from becoming personal. All seven council members belong to the LDS Church, while Anderson was reared LDS but has turned from the faith.
The mayor has challenged the church to live up to its agreement, which included a provision stating that the sale would stand even if the restrictions were struck down.
Clark said the City Council can't give away the city's easement because it would amount to a gratuitous transfer of property between a government and a church. Such a transfer is forbidden by Utah's constitution, Clark said.
And Rocky does the exact same things that he accuses the LDS church and the previous SLC mayor of doing: not getting the people's input and deciding things unilaterally. He is up for re-election next year, I do hope that the conservatives in SLC wake up and vote next year to get rid of him.
No New Hearing for Plaza
The LDS Church lost its bid Thursday for a new hearing before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in the end it still may get what it wants -- control of its Main Street Plaza.
Salt Lake City Council members believe they can get rid of the city's easement through the plaza, which would leave the church completely in charge, regulating access, behavior and speech. If council members take that step -- and it is not clear they will -- they could be setting up a future legal battle with Mayor Rocky Anderson. He maintains he is in charge of the easement.
The legal battle will continue regardless.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Thursday it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Anderson has said he will not join the appeal, estimating the city already has spent "well over $100,000."
In a news release, the church says the 10th Circuit failed to address property rights and the free exercise of religion.
"Like all U.S. citizens, we highly value the freedom of expression which the United States Constitution guarantees," the church says. "However, we also point out that the very first freedom mentioned in the Constitution is religious freedom. The Constitution also guarantees property owners, including churches, the right to the full enjoyment of their property."
The church also plans to further present its case to the public this weekend. Anderson canceled a planned trip out of town to address plaza issues.
On Thursday, council members released an opinion written by an outside attorney they retained for $5,000 that outlines their role on plaza matters. If the council eliminates the easement, the church's appeal to the high court could be moot. Church officials have repeatedly asked Anderson to give up the easement, which the mayor said he will not do.
In his seven-page opinion, University of Utah law professor John Martinez explained that because the council retained the easement when it vacated Main Street in 1999, it should be able to amend the ordinance and remove the easement. The council had to vacate the street so that former Mayor Deedee Corradini could sell it.
"The council has the power to eliminate the public right to access," Martinez said during a news conference at City Hall. "Any public access would be up to the discretion of the church."
But Corradini also had a role in keeping the easement, retaining it separately through a document called the "Special Warranty Deed" that conveyed the property to the church. Anderson said the deed means he, not the council, has the right to determine what happens to the easement. Martinez disagrees.
"Can I see a situation where I would sue? Yeah, I can," the mayor said.
While church officials have said they would keep the plaza open to the public even without the easement, the promise probably would not satisfy the public, Anderson suggests.
City Council members "clearly stated at the time of the initial transaction they wanted absolute certainty of a perpetual right of access," he said.
Council Chairman Dave Buhler, who called Martinez's opinion "interesting," said he does not know what the all-LDS City Council will do. If council members vote to get rid of the easement, Anderson could veto the decision and the council would need five of seven votes to override him. Buhler wants to set a public hearing next month on the matter, but may delay it because of the church's appeal to the high court.
Buhler said "80 to 90 percent" of the public wants to simply walk across the plaza, not protest or pass out pamphlets. "There's plenty of places to exercise free speech."
Anderson said he still is focused on coming up with constitutional time, place and manner restrictions for the plaza, which he considers a better resolution for the divided community. But those rules will not appease the church, because they must allow for traditional free-speech activities, including demonstrations and pamphleteering.
The city sold Main Street from North Temple to South Temple for $8.1 million in 1999.
The church turned it into what it considers an ecclesiastical park, linking Temple Square to church office buildings. Corradini and the council agreed to the church-sought restrictions on behavior there, including giving the church the sole right to proselytize.
The Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued, lost in U.S. District Court and appealed to the 10th Circuit. A panel of three judges ruled unanimously last month that the city must protect the First Amendment on the plaza because the city retained the public access easement.
The LDS Church asked the three judges to hear the case again and asked for the entire panel of active 10th Circuit judges to hear it. Both petitions were denied Thursday in a two-paragraph ruling.
None of the 10 active judges -- including Utah Judge Michael Murphy -- even asked for a vote to determine if the justices wanted to hear the case en banc.
"Well its not the Unitarians, if that's the one true faith, I'll eat my hat." -- Homer J Simpson.
Let's get real here. Who can seriously question the right of churches to prohibit its enemies from passing out literature, yelling, intimidating and harassing its members ON THEIR OWN properties? If I started harassing Baptists on their church's front lawn, telling them they're going to hell, and thrusting demeaning and hostile literature at them, and be over-all hostile and antagonistic; why wouldn't they have the right to prevent me from doing so? Whatever happened to "Get off my property or I'll call the cops!"
The ironic thing is the Mormons get it up the wazoo again. Even in Utah!
Finally, don't be misled by the apparent peaceful nature of the plaintiffs against the Mormons - one merely has to see their rabid and frightening hatred and hostility during the twice-yearly General Conference to see the fine line between proselyting and outright criminal acts. If these same people were to do the same thing against the Jews - they'll be thrown in jail so fast for being anti-Semitic. If they did it against the Muslims - they'll be laying dead in the street. If they did it against the Scientologists - they'll get sued for everything they have. And yet, Mormons are fair game???
AFAIK, Mormons have never went through the trouble of harassing and actively oppose other faiths. Live and let live. What the hell is wrong with that?
WRONG. A local church group of another denomination went to a small Utah town one week to hold VBS in the PUBLIC park. When the townsfolks found out what group they were they turned the sprinklers on right during the middle of the VBS. Then their stores suddenly quit accepting "out of state" checks. Note, all were accepted prior to the realization that the visitors were not Mormon. So, the group bought their groceries at another town down the road. Interesting, when they found out the other town would sell to the group they started suddenly accepting out of town checks again. I would call this harrassment and actively opposing another faith.
Even if one cites the most extreme example possible of Mormon involvement in the Mountain Meadow Massacre, even this incident was due to what the migrating party told the Mormons (bragging they were involved in killing the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, they were part of the group who drove the Mormons out of Missouri, saying when they reach California, they will lead parties from there to drive the Mormons out of Utah, all the while disrespecting their property such as randomly decapitating and killing farm animals especially chickens with their whips - I mean, come on! What were these lunatics thinking? The Mormons would just allow themselves to be driven off their own land for the fourth time [after the incidents in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois]) during the worst possible time (the Mormon War). These same Mormons were building a place for themselves in a desert, struggling to survive and just be left alone. They actually left the US (the region was part of Mexico at the time) just to avoid the hostility of their fellow Americans. And yet, in the middle of nowhere, oppressors still came.
What you seem to fail to appreciate is Mormons, especially those in the Mountain Region, have a "siege mentality." Mormons are so used to oppression that enough of it will be bound to make some snap. When some so-called "Christians" go to Mormon areas for the sole purpose of demonizing their faith, to tell them they're going to hell and their loved ones who've died are now roasting in hell, what should they expect? Mormons to invite them into their homes and give them milk and cookies?
Look, if so-called Christian churches want to have honest dialog with Mormons, there's no doubt they will realize Mormons are every bit as "Christian" as they are despite having many differences. This is due to the fact Mormonism is the fourth branch of Christianity (neither Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox nor Protestant). If they want reasoned discussion, there's no shortage of Mormons who would be willing to talk to them. Just don't expect EVERY Mormon they appraoch is willing to stop what they're doing and talk religion. Let's be real - how many of us would gladly entertain other missionaries who are trying to convert us to their religion?
My dad said he was listening to Tom Barberi on Friday afternoon, and Barberi said to live and let live on the plaza. It's a done deal and beautifies the city of Salt Lake. Some of the people of SLC are acting like scalded cats over this issue. The plaza was meant to be a place of beauty and of peace and meditation for ALL the citizens of SLC and any visitors.
I have a brother who works for Zions Securities, the corporation that handles all of the church's public properties. He said there are many properties in SLC that are now owned by the LDS church that they bought from the city and that have public easements. This issue not only affects the Main Street plaza, but all properties owned by entities other than the city and were bought from the city and have public easements on them. My brother also gets mad because Rocky acts as if the LDS church will deny access to everyone if the easement is given to the church. No, the LDS church keeps its word, the plaza is there for all. The church will maintain it to be a beautiful place for tourists and citizens and visitors. And the plaza will remain open, no gates or fences.
I just finished reading another article from the Deseret News too. It talks about what would happen if another mayor came in and gave the easement back to the LDS church. Rocky had a cow over that statement. Rocky needs to get it through his head that this issue needs to be settled, not just by him, but by input from the community, the SL City Council, and gasp, yes, the LDS church. One last comment that had me clenching my teeth was that Rocky has apparently decided that if the easement goes back to the LDS church, the church should pay for it. At this point, I think the church would gladly pay for the easement. But then the ACLU would sue again...and there we would be. Sorry to be so long-winded and ranting and raving about this, but it really pushes my buttons.
I'll believe that as soon as the current mormon president states that everything that Joseph Smith said about all other Churches to be false was wrong. You can't have it both ways.
That being said, from what I have read on this topic, I think the Mormon church is getting the short end, due to many reasons. Including some mistakes the Mormon church made.
Huh? Sorry pal, compare the theologies. I would say if Mormons want to be taken seriously, they would stop insisting they are Christian, then perhaps an honest dialoge could happen.
With that said, private property is private property wether the public happens to be allowed there or not. The LDS Chruch should have every right to decide what goes on there and who should be there.
Here are the words of your 'prophet' who distances himself from all other churches of his day. Yet you want to be viewed as a fellow Christian.
You want it both ways.
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
=======
Now what 'personage' would say that all creeds of all the Christian churches in 1830 were an abomination.... could it be....*****?
2 Corinthians 11 (KJV)
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
=======
It is Joseph Smith and 'the Personage' who seperate you from ALL OTHERS.
It belongs to THEM. Put a fence around it and do what ever you want inside of it.
It belongs to the church.
ANYONE who does NOT follow the owners wishes can be asked to vacate the premises. If they do not, it is trespassing.
The problem with religious fanatics like you is you define "Christian" in a manner that is UNBIBLICAL. Why don't you just stick with what the Bible says and use it as the yardstick? You can't can you? You have to use absurd standards despite the dishonesty of doing so.
It is true the personage whom we view to be the glorified Christ told Joseph Smith to separate himself from the current Protestant churches he was familiar with and it is also true this personage described their creeds as abominations to him. Your problem is those precise "Creeds" that were deemed abominable are ABSENT in the Bible.
Grow up! What does one call a religion that teaches Jesus is: The Savior. The Redeemer. The Messiah. The Lamb of God. The Son of God. God. The I AM. The Son of Man. Born of a virgin. The First/Last. The Creator. The Paraclete/ Advocate/ Comforter. The Mediator/ Intercessor/ Reconciler. He died for our sins. He died on the cross. He rose from the dead. The Judge. The Foundation. The Rock. The only Begotten Son of God. Worshiped. The name used to pray to the Father. Obeyed. We take upon ourselves his name. The only source of Salvation and the greatest name possible.
For proof all these points are taught by Mormonism, see http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id108.htm
Why am I not surprised dishonest people like yourself are absolute cowards when facing the truth?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.