- 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
- is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
- is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Let's stipulate that the protection of the rights of Muslims to project their faith within the shadow of ground zero--that topic was probably not primary in the minds of the drafters when they adopted RLUIPA. Still doesn't the act through a fairly large spanner into the works of any governmental machine trying to limit the use of the land in question?
2 comments:
rluipa needs to be challanged the ground zero mosque is perferc example why communities need to be able to vote on how religions operate in our communities. The act is unconstitutional and is stacked in favor of religion. So suck it up folks or challange "rluipa"
RLUIPA is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed. Ground zero mosque is perfect example why communities need to be able to have a say in what type of religious exercise is acceptable to a community at large. So suck it up folks or challange RLUIPA.
Post a Comment