Church pleased with plaza ruling, plaintiffs may appeal

    67

    By Jon Tollestrup

    Plaintiffs in Salt Lake City?s Main Street Plaza dispute called this week?s judicial decision a setback, while defendants were pleased with the unanimous ruling that upholds The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? right to continue maintaining the plaza as private property.

    A lawyer representing Salt Lake City, which along with the church was named as a defendant, said his clients look forward to putting the legal dispute behind them.

    ?We?re obviously very pleased,? said attorney Steven Allred, who represented the city. ?It?s been a long and divisive road, and we?re pleased that it turned out that the elected officials of Salt Lake City have triumphed.?

    Allred said the defendants felt cautiously optimistic about prevailing in the case because the lower court judge?s opinion had answered all the questions raised by the plaintiff?s appeal.

    As expected, the church reacted similarly to the city upon receiving the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

    ?We are pleased with the court?s ruling,? said Bruce L. Olsen, managing director of public affairs for the church, in a written statement. ?The church has always intended that the plaza be a place of peace, a quiet oasis in the midst of a bustling city where everyone can enjoy an atmosphere of serenity and reflection.?

    The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit ? the Utah chapter of the National Organization for Women, the Utah Gospel Mission, the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City and Murray resident and former Salt Lake Tribune science reporter Lee Siegel ? had alleged that the city violated the First Amendment when it sold an easement for public access to the church for $5 million. Although plaintiffs prevailed three years ago before the Tenth Circuit on a related issue, they said this week?s decision was not unexpected.

    ?I was not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised,? said Andrea Moore-Emmett, president of the Utah chapter of NOW. ?There?s a climate in our country right now where separation of state and church is very, very fragilely blurred and there is a lot more power given to religion.?

    But Allred said religion wasn?t even an issue and that the case rested in part on the argument that the city and the church were only involved in a real estate transaction.

    ?I don?t think there was government-religious interaction, this was a real estate transaction between one party and the other party, and the other party just happened to be a church,? Allred said. ?I think that we were able to convince the court that this had nothing to do with advancing any religious doctrines.?

    Additionally, Allred said the constitution doesn?t allow government to work in favor of religion, but it also doesn?t require that it work against a religion either.

    Whether or not the plaintiffs plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is unclear at this time. Mark Lopez, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represented the parties bringing the lawsuit, said the ACLU wants to wait 30 days before making a decision.

    ?It will be up to the ACLU. My hunch is that we would not continue the fight?up the ladder,? said Rev. Tom Goldsmith of the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake. ?The judges ruled 3-to-0 in this. I think their view is clear and I don?t think the Supreme Court would change it, and I think it?s time to let go of this.?

    But Lopez said moving on would be difficult because of the ACLU?s long-standing opposition to the public display of religious symbols on public property and excessive interaction between church and state.

    ?When you transfer municipal property to a church and the church is going to use it like it?s municipal property then we think that gives us cause (to get involved),? Lopez said. ?We think this decision opens the door to other types of transfers like this, and that we?re going to see more crucifixes, Ten Commandments and religious monuments on public property, or what used to be public property.?

    However, putting religious monuments on public property is something lawyers representing the defendants said wasn?t even an issue in the case because the church owned all the property rights to the plaza.

    ?If it?s legal to do something with your property, you can do it, I can do it, a church can do it,? Allred said. ?That?s a difficulty I think the ACLU had trouble grasping. Once this property was sold and the city disinvested itself of any interest in it that became private property just like yours or mine.?

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email