Reply #27: Legally, being a landlord does not imply endorsement.

[Xithras]

Years ago I had a tenant in a rental who was arrested on child sex charges. The fact that I rented him the space to commit his crime doesn't imply my endorsement of it.

Same concept applies here. If the government is going to rent public facilities for private use, they cannot limit or prohibit the activities in that rented space based on any protected class. As a private landlord, I couldn't discriminate against renters because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Government landlords are held to an even higher standard because of the Constitution.

It would only qualify as an endorsement of religion over non-religion if the city refused to rent a space to an atheist group promoting sane, reality based solutions to our economic problems. That's the big difference here...these religious people are renting the space, and have all the rights of any other tenant. If they want to use their rented space as a prayer room, they certainly have the right to do so. I personally think it's kind of a stupid thing to do, but stupidity is as much a right as any other. There would be a HUGE constitutional issue here if the city were simply giving them the space, or were offering them a space they wouldn't provide to other groups, but we're essentially just talking about a landlord/tenant relationship in a building that happens to be owned by the public. This is already settled constitutional law, and the city isn't violating any laws unless someone can show discriminatory application.