Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pinto

(106,886 posts)
37. I'm unfamiliar with RLUIPA, but for background found this via Wikipedia, fwiw -
Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:08 PM
Feb 2013
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106–274, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.

It was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no vote was taken.

Zoning and land use

In religious land use disputes, RLUIPA’s general rule is the most commonly cited and challenged section. It provides:

1. General rule. No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution

a. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

b. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

2 .Scope of Application. This subsection applies in any case in which—
a. the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or

b. the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or

c. the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(a).

During these disputes, the correct interpretation of the term “land use regulation” is almost always an issue. The statute defines “land use regulation” as “a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act
All I want is a burka for Christmas!! La, La, La, La, Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #1
Oh, the fun we could have rewriting Christmas songs for other faiths riqster Feb 2013 #2
Why would atheists celebrate Christmas? HappyMe Feb 2013 #7
For the gifts, dummy! Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #10
Here's one! Still Blue in PDX Feb 2013 #23
Not to cause a resurgence of the (theoretical) war on Christmas, but . . . Still Blue in PDX Feb 2013 #27
Here's one from Tom Lehrer riqster Feb 2013 #28
Then why are businesses required to accommodate religious objection as practical? ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #3
Are you saying the United States is NOT a secular nation? MNBrewer Feb 2013 #4
Its a hybrid, mostly historical roots ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #9
Do, Please, Sir, Expound Further On This.... The Magistrate Feb 2013 #5
It depends on the level and degree ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #12
That Does Not Advance The Conversation, Professor.... The Magistrate Feb 2013 #13
Tax exempt status has nothing to do with "reasonable accommodation to popular feelings" ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #16
If You Think It Has Nothing To Do with Popular Feelings, Professor The Magistrate Feb 2013 #18
Churches are considered charities under the tax code Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #11
That is mostly a legacy from medieval times ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #14
Not really... Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #17
Further to this I believe the lack of taxation is seen as part of the separation of Church and State ieoeja Feb 2013 #39
Yes - But some of them cross the line regularly Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #41
Because the 1st amendment establishes freedom of religion. cbayer Feb 2013 #22
That only applies to the government not private individuals ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #24
What only applies to government? Non-profit status applies to all non-profit cbayer Feb 2013 #29
Agree with lax IRS enforcement of the 501(c)3 standards. pinto Feb 2013 #31
Localities can control Costco much more than a churches ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #33
What has it done to neighborhoods, for better or worse? pinto Feb 2013 #38
I generally believe that even non-profits should pay their fair share of community costs ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #40
Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) pinto Feb 2013 #30
That exemption is also extended to property taxes in most jurisdictions ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #34
Yeah.....and? HappyMe Feb 2013 #6
You must teach me, George Michael. You must teach me the ways of the secular flesh. nt Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #8
The nation is, but a lot of the people aren't slackmaster Feb 2013 #15
Another clue: the US census magellan Feb 2013 #19
One side of my ancestry got here in 1774, the rest in the 1800's riqster Feb 2013 #20
I hear you magellan Feb 2013 #21
Same here on the French side riqster Feb 2013 #25
Certainly. I would be outraged if Congress passed a law respecting the establishment of religion, Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #26
Constitutionally it is decidedly neutral in regards religion. Neither supporting nor obstructing. pinto Feb 2013 #32
Correct. riqster Feb 2013 #35
Yet we have Federal laws like RLUIPA ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #36
I'm unfamiliar with RLUIPA, but for background found this via Wikipedia, fwiw - pinto Feb 2013 #37
Which is exactly why I'm 10000% against a new constitutional convention. Initech Feb 2013 #42
Fuckin' hell, NO! riqster Feb 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The United States is a se...»Reply #37