04-20-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION City of Lake Elmo April 20, 1999 Page 10 practices, violating the Minnesota Constitution. Id.... "[T]he state Bill of Rights expressly grants affirmative rights in the area of..religious worship while the corresponding federal provision simply attempts to restrain governmental action." Id. Section 16 also expressly limits the governmental interests that may outweigh religious liberty. Only the government's interest in peace or safety or against acts of licentiousness will excuse an imposition on religious freedom." Id. See also, Basich; Hill -Murray Federation of Teachers v. Hill -Murray High School, 487 N.W.2d 857, 865 (Minn. 1992). The state of Minnesota has the right to impose more rigorous constitutional standards than those set forth in the federal constitution. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 9 (Minn. 1990). The plain language of § 16 requires a court to balance competing interests whenever rights of conscience are burdened. Id. The state may , erfere with rights of conscience only if it can show that the religious practice in question is licentious or inconsistent with goals of peace or safety. Id. hurches, and will In the present case, the PF-Ordinance is specifically designed to restrict the size of c have the effect of prohibiting new churches. This undeniably infringes and interferes with the churches ability to worship and exercise other religious practices. This is precisely the type of infringement which § 16 does not permit. The Minnesota Courts impose a four prong compelling interest test in determining the validity of a regulation: 1) is the belief sincerely held; 2) does the state regulation burden the exercise of a religious belief; 3) is the state interest in the regulation overriding or compelling; 4) does the state regulation use the least restrictive means for effectuating its compelling interest. Murphy v. Murphy 574 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998); Basich; Hill Murray. 1) The Lake Elmo churches desire and need to worship is a sincerely held religious belief. The Bible and founding doctrines of the churches support this. A fundamental element of practicing religious beliefs includes congregating for worship. Furthermore, the provision of social services, recreational activities and community services form an integral element of the exercise of religious belief. Countless cases, even under the less stringent first amendment test, have held as much. See e.g., Western Presbyterian Church v. Board of Zoning and Adjustment, 862 F.Supp. 538 (D.D.C. 1994). 2) As discussed above, the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed PF-Ordinance, burden religious practices. Pursuant to §16 of the State Constitution, even infringement or interference with religion, whether direct or indirect, constitutes a burden. The exclusion of churches from all zoning districts burdens religious practices. The allowance of churches only as a conditional use in one zoning district burdens religious practices. The need to obtain legislative approval and a conditional use permit to establish a new place of worship burden religious practices. The severe restrictions imposed on churches in the proposed PF-Ordinance burdens religious practices. The record is amply filled with testimony and evidence that churches simply will not be able to carry out their religious missions under the proposed PF-Ordinance. MumoG 598883.1