Written by Don Byrd
As I read through Judge Corlew’s ruling in the Murfreesboro mosque decision, one thing jumps out that is escaping most news coverage: the decision strongly affirms laws and principles of religious freedom. Yes, the Commission will have to vote again in a properly noticed hearing, but the judge indicated they don’t exactly have much room to vote no.
[T]he duty of the county is to apply those laws without discrimination… Although the Planning Commission certainly may deny such permission, the opportunities to do so are limited, and any action by the government must be taken in a non-discriminatory manner, and denial of permission must be made for non-discriminatory reasons. Under the First Amendment to our Federal Constitution, freedom of religion is to be safeguarded. The federal courts have previously determined that the type of meeting place which was proposed is in fact a religious meeting place, and that the practice of Islam is in fact a religion subject to the protections of our federal Constitution. We acknowledge that the county must comply with the Federal Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (FRFRA) and the Tennessee Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TNRFRA).
This may be a case not so much of discrimination any longer, but a Planning Commission that really did fail to properly notice a hearing.While plaintiffs are claiming victory, their core claims – that Islam is not a religion protected by the First Amendment, that a mosque constitutes a threat to the community – were firmly rejected by this judge, both in his initial ruling and in this new decision.
Meanwhile, the county may not force construction to stop while they ponder how to comply withe judge’s ruling and re-approve, presumably, the building permit.
