this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024

272 points (99.3% liked)

News

23266 readers

2980 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

272

Federal judge blocks Castle Rock from using code to stop church from providing temporary shelter to unhoused (www.denver7.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge ruled that the Town of Castle Rock cannot enforce a land use code against The Rock evangelical church for providing temporary shelter for unhoused people on its property.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico handed down the ruling on Friday. The decision granted the church a preliminary injunction.

The church sued Castle Rock earlier this year after it received a "letter of determination" from the zoning manager stating that the church was violating zoning regulations and that it couldn't park RVs used as residences on site.

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago (3 children)

If I know anything about towns named Castle Rock, that church is probably all vampires.

[–] Spot@startrek.website 10 points 3 months ago

As someone with a wall full of S.K. novels, I appreciate this reference.

[–] TheEEEdiot@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure why people are downvoting you on this comment. I got the Stephen King reference too.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe they think I'm insulting religion? I don't know.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You’re not?! Let me change that to a downvote.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Does it help that Stephen King has called religion a dangerous tool?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/29/stephen-king-religion-dangerous-god-exists

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 7 points 3 months ago

Don’t try to confuse me with your FACTS and LOGIC!

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Probably because reference jokes don't add anything useful to the discussion.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

I think Stephen King's Castle Rock is in Maine though.

[–] noxy@yiffit.net 42 points 3 months ago (1 children)

good church

signed, an atheist

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am with you. Every once in a while I have to admit that one here or there is doing good work.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

You can tell when a church is actually doing good work because right-wingers will try to stop them

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is the second time that the town of Castle Rock has taken the incorrect moral position.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Also poised to elect Boebert as their representative! Having an incorrect moral position counter at 2 seems way too low.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, shit, I didn't realize that she was the rep for Castle Rock. I'm sorry.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

She's not currently. She was in a mountain district to the west but they moved her to the Douglas county district south of Denver that's even more red. I'm happy to be able to vote against her this year!

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

unhoused

We did it! We've solved the homeless crisis!

[+] imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com -41 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Ridiculous. Churches pay no tax and act like they are above the law. This needs to change.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 71 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m in agreement that churches need scrutiny, a lot more. But here is a church standing up for actual, biblically authorized Christian activity?

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

And more importantly, activity that helps people in need instead of upholding archaic, patriarchal, and homophobic beliefs

[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How is this church acting like it is above the law in this specific instance?

It used the legal system to get a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of town land use code. Seems like it followed the law and the process is playing out as intended.

[–] imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The town's land use code IS the law! This activity isn't permitted. Bring the homeless into the church, don't turn it into a trailer park.

This court just granted the church an injunction preventing enforcement of the law. Although this is America 2024, laws don't seem to matter anymore.

[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Can’t argue with that understanding of the US legal system.

Court's Decision

[–] imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Church has carried its burden on this question. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, a substantial burden exists for the purposes of RLUIPA where the government “prevents participation in conduct mo- tivated by a sincerely held religious belief.” Sebelius, 723 F.3d at 1138 (10th Cir. 2013). Although the Town alludes to a bit of a disconnect between the Church’s assertion that it is compelled to allow the poor to “live among you” and its desire to have people live in RVs on Church grounds rather than in homes and residential areas where Church mem- bers live, it does not ultimately dispute the sincerity of the Church’s assertions on this point, which are supported by sworn affidavits. See Doc. 8–4 at 24, 38. And while the Town may eventually show that the Church’s beliefs are not in fact sincere or that there is a non-religious motivation behind the desire to allow people to live on Church property, it has not done so at this point. See Grace United Methodist Church, 451F.3d at 648 (“The jury found that Grace United had failed to prove the proposed operation of the daycare center was a sincere exercise of religion under RLUIPA.”).

To me, live among you means in the church, not an RV on the outer perimeter of the church lawn, 400 feet from the property line.

I also take issue with the use of the RLUIPA to argue that churches can essentially do whatever they want as long as it's a sincerely held religious belief. That is as absurd as Kanye West claiming he should pay no tax because his album is preaching and he's actually operating a church rather than just being an asshole.

I'd like to see RLUIPA amended.

[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So you are admitting there is a conflict between two laws that needs to be reconciled.

I propose creating a system… we could call it the “law conflict figuring out process or “LCFOP” for short. It would be a perfect place for people to voice thoughts that come after phrases like “To me a law means…”

It’s a crazy idea I know.

Edit: Also, this last comment you made at least digs into the substance of the issue in a way your initial reactionary comment does not. Thank you for adding to the conversation about the rights use of religion as a Trojan Horse for conservative legal positions.

[–] imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 3 months ago

I didn't know about the RLUIPA until I read the doc, so I didn't realize there was even a conflict. I thought this was pure judicial activism.

[–] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago

This is one of the few instances I'm in favor of a church breaking the law. That law is unjust anyway and Jesus in the new testament consistently preaches that we should care for the sick, the needy and the homeless.

[–] ealoe@ani.social 22 points 3 months ago

This church is trying to provide houses for homeless people. Christianity started out being pretty unpopular with the law but that hasn't stopped them because laws don't define morality. I suppose if you don't want the church housing the homeless you can always invite them to your house.

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

I mean the whole point of giving churches a tax break is that they're supposed to provide value to the community that is greater than any taxes could be. Most churches don't, though, and instead are a drain on the communities instead. At least this one is doing what they're suppose to do with those tax breaks.

And this is probably the only time I've had reason to defend an evangelical church, ever.

[–] manxu@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I think the Federal Court just decided the town of Castle Rock thought itself above the law, not the church.