Because parking in front of the church door is a religious right

[dasgeh]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/10/14/d-c-church-says-a-bike-lane-would-infringe-upon-its-constitutional-rights-of-religious-freedom/

AKA, if you set a bad precedent, you will regret it in the future

I wodner what they say to all the other people who park in the spots in front of the church and infringe on their religious rights.

Topic

[83b]

I’m beyond livid at this point. This all started for me with a friend in wheelchair who moved onto a block with a church and the church rebuffed his requests to ask people to stop parking in crosswalks on Sundays, which blocks the curb cuts and traps him on his street. It blew my mind they wouldn’t stop and MPD and local ANC reps were useless in trying to get a resolution. Compound that by (i) the actions of AME Zion with respect to the M Street facility, (ii) the actions now of UHOP over this 6th St facility, and (iii) an absolute horde of MD-tagged cars that descend on my neighborhood and illegally park and generally drive like maniacs while I’m out for Sunday morning rides. So yea, when I see one of these bad neighbors converting into an actual productive use in the neighborhood, I’m glad.

[AlexandriaBiker]

If this comes to pass I will be leading a 50 mile bike ride from the front of the church every Sunday at 7:30. Convenient free parking. Right?

[TwoWheelsDC]

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State absolutely destroyed UHOP’s legal reasoning in a letter to DDOT:

https://au.org/files/pdf_documents/2016-10-20_BikeLaneLetter.pdf

Mr. Leif A. Dormsjo
Director
District Department of Transportation 55 M Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003

Re: The Proposed Bicycle Lane on 6th Street, N.W. Would Not Violate Religious Liberty

Dear Mr. Dormsjo:

We were recently made aware of the controversy surrounding a proposal to add a bike lane to 6th Street, N.W. We take no position on the designation of such a bike lane. Indeed, there are likely many legitimate arguments on all sides surrounding the proposal. We write simply to explain that the claim that the bike lane would violate religious liberty is not one of them.

On October 18, attorneys for the United House of Prayer wrote to you asserting that the designation of the bike lane on 6th Street, N.W. would violate the religious freedom of the church. In particular, the letter asserts that the bike lane would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

As an organization that has worked to defend the freedom of religion and belief for nearly seven decades, we feel obligated to respond to these claims. Not only are they unsupported in law, but these frivolous claims actually threaten religious freedom. Arguing that designating portions of public roads as bike lanes burdens religion belittles true violations of religious liberty. Furthermore, if DDOT were to acquiesce to the church’s claims, it would be handing this church and other houses of worship in the District a trump card over all its decisions.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value. It means that we are all free to believe or not as we see fit, but it does not mean that houses of worship have veto power over laws and public policy decisions with which they disagree or that cause them inconvenience. Nor does it grant houses of worship the right to dictate what the District government does with its streets and public land.

The Bike Lane Would Not Violate the Free Exercise Clause

The October 18 letter relies on the 1964 Supreme Court case, Sherbert v. Verner,1 for the assertion that “[t]he First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government action that ‘substantially burdens’ the free exercise of religion. A ‘compelling interest’ must exist before a governmental body can import a substantial burden on religious activities.” The letter fails to mention, however, that a quarter century ago, the Supreme Court completely changed the landscape of free exercise jurisprudence.2 Employment Division v. Smith3 held that the compelling interest test still applies to laws that target religious practice, but it rejected the standard outright for laws that are neutral and generally applicable.

The bike lane proposal is clearly neutral and generally applicable. The “object or purpose” of the bike lane is not “the suppression of religion or religious conduct.”4 Nor is there a masked hostility that “targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment.”5 The bike lane, which would traverse many blocks and in front of many homes, businesses, and other structures, is designed to increase bicycle use and safety and is not targeted at religious practice. Nor would the bike lane actually result in the inability of the church to engage in religious practice. The First Amendment, therefore, would not bar the bike lane on 6th Street, N.W.

The Installation of A Bike Lane Does Not Create a Substantial Burden Under RFRA

RFRA does prohibit the District from substantially burdening religion without a compelling government interest. But the installation of a bike lane surely would not create a substantial burden on the religious practice of this church.
In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association,6 the Supreme Court held that the federal government’s decision to build a new road and harvest timber in a national forest did not substantially burden the religious practice of three American Indian tribes that had traditionally used the land for religious rituals. The tribes argued that the “proposed road will ‘physically destro[y] the environmental conditions and the privacy without which the [religious] practices cannot be conducted.’”7 The Supreme Court assumed that the new road “could have devastating effects on traditional Indian religious practices,”8 yet concluded that that this did not constitute a substantial burden. The Court explained that the tribes would not be “coerced by the Government’s action into violating their religious beliefs” nor would the construction “penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.”9 If the new road construction on the public property in Lyng, which potentially had “devastating effects” on the tribes’ religious rituals, did not create a substantial burden on religion, surely designating a portion of existing public streets as a bike lane would not substantially burden the church’s religion simply because it eliminates some parking spaces on those public streets. Indeed, the bike lane would not preclude the church or its members from engaging in any religious practices nor from using the public roads in the same manner as anyone else. Accordingly, RFRA does not preclude the bike land proposal.

RLUIPA Does Not Apply to District Decisions About District Land

RLUIPA applies to institutionalized persons and land use regulations. In accordance with the statute:
“land use regulation” means 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.10
The District is proposing to designate a portion of its roads as a bike lane. The church lacks any property interest in those roads. Accordingly, RLUIPA does not even apply to the bike lane proposal.

Conclusion

Again, we take no position on whether the District should designate part of 6th Street, N.W. as a bike lane. We write this letter simply to explain that the Free Exercise Clause, RFRA, and RLUIPA do not prohibit the District from designating the bike lane. These religious freedom protections are designed to protect individuals and houses of worship from real violations of religious liberty—losing access to parking spaces on a public road does not amount to religious persecution. We hope that these frivolous claims neither dominate the debate nor dictate its outcome. Such a result would do a disservice to the real issues surrounding the bike lane proposal and real fights for religious liberty.

[consularrider]

@AlexandriaBiker 126710 wrote:

If this comes to pass I will be leading a 50 mile bike ride from the front of the church every Sunday at 7:30. Convenient free parking. Right?

I think we should start a series of Sunday morning coffee rides from that spot and ensure that all parking places are occupied a at an early hour. Maybe we could get a bunch of Virginia plates to compete with all the Maryland plates. The only bad thing about that would be to actually drive a car (or an airplane in my case). :rolleyes:

[jrenaut]

@consularrider 126713 wrote:

I think we should start a series of Sunday morning coffee rides from that spot and ensure that all parking places are occupied a at an early hour. Maybe we could get a bunch of Virginia plates to compete with all the Maryland plates. The only bad thing about that would be to actually drive a car (or an airplane in my case). :rolleyes:

If you manage to park an airplane on 6th St NW before anyone arrives for church on a Sunday, I think you get to turn the whole street into a cycle boulevard.

[83b]

@jrenaut 126714 wrote:

If you manage to park an airplane ….

It costs ~50 bucks a day to rent a 24 foot trailer truck. Pencil me in for 48 feet of protest whenever and wherever.

[jrenaut]

@83(b) 126715 wrote:

It costs ~50 bucks a day to rent a 24 foot trailer truck. Pencil me in for 48 feet of protest whenever and wherever.

As satisfying as that would be, it’s the wrong direction in this case. It won’t win over any support.

My kids’ school is nearby. We have a lot of parents who drop off and pick up by bike. This bike infrastructure would be wonderful for many of us. I’m beginning to recruit parents to show up at the next meeting, whenever that is, to show why we need these lanes. My seven year old would bike herself to school if we had them. She doesn’t now because the sidewalks are bad and the streets aren’t kid-safe.

The perception here is that it’s a bunch of white yuppies who just moved in and want to displace the older residents. Protests won’t change that view, but parents with kids might.

[83b]

@jrenaut 126717 wrote:

It won’t win over any support.

After the friends who told me about churchgoers looking them dead in the eye and threatening to run cyclists over, I’m still at the sputtering rage, unnecessary escalation, and petty revenge fantasies stage.

If past is prologue, before doing anything actively unhelpful I’ll calm down and revert to passive aggressive type. I’ll put some more time into drafting that property tax/tax credit ballot initiative. Might even sign up for another monthly WABA donation in tribute to Bishop C.M. Bailey so UHOP gets the newsletters. I know John Townsend appreciates his.

[creadinger]

@jrenaut 126717 wrote:

The perception here is that it’s a bunch of white yuppies who just moved in and want to displace the older residents. Protests won’t change that view, but parents with kids might.

The “won’t someone think of the children” argument? That only works with pornography and cigarettes.

Best of luck anyway!

[jrenaut]

To be fair, the argument only needs to work on DDOT, since ultimately the churches have no legal leg to stand on and DDOT doesn’t have to listen to them at all. But it would be better for all if we could get church leadership to at least come to the table with open minds.

[dasgeh]

@jrenaut 126732 wrote:

To be fair, the argument only needs to work on DDOT, since ultimately the churches have no legal leg to stand on and DDOT doesn’t have to listen to them at all. But it would be better for all if we could get church leadership to at least come to the table with open minds.

I think it’s a good point, and I think your efforts would be most effective if the people who show up are diverse.

Another tact is to worship at the church, if you’re so inclined to worship. I’m trying to find a weekend when I will work for our family.

[jrenaut]

@dasgeh 126736 wrote:

I think it’s a good point, and I think your efforts would be most effective if the people who show up are diverse.

The school is diverse, so I’m hoping I can get a diverse group of families.

[trailrunner]

@AlexandriaBiker 126710 wrote:

If this comes to pass I will be leading a 50 mile bike ride from the front of the church every Sunday at 7:30. Convenient free parking. Right?

Sorta gives new meaning to a critical *mass* ride, huh?

[Tim Kelley]

@trailrunner 126749 wrote:

Sorta gives new meaning to a critical *mass* ride, huh?

Limited only to “cross” bikes…

[Subby]

“This ain’t London, this ain’t Europe. The United States is built on the automobile and we need to respect that,” said Michael Green, a deacon at New Bethel Baptist Church.

Finally! About time someone remembers the tactical car advantage we had during the revolutionary war. Ppl forget that.

[Author]

Replies