Supreme Court Passes on Mormon Church Case

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear arguments on whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be allowed to limit speech it deems offensive in a park it purchased from Salt Lake City.

The court's decision lets stand an October ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said free-speech rights along the plaza sidewalks must be retained because the church had guaranteed the city pedestrian access through the park.

The plaza dispute began in April 1999, when the Mormon church paid the city $8.1 million for one block of Main Street adjacent to the church's temple.

The church agreed to the city's demands of public access to the block, but demanded that they be allowed to restrict smoking, sunbathing, bicycling, obscene or vulgar speech, dress or conduct on the plaza.

The Utah branch of the American Civil Liberties Union sued, arguing the restrictions were unconstitutional.

A federal judge sided with the church, but the appeals court overturned that decision in October, ruling the city couldn't create a "First Amendment-free zone."

The dispute widened a chasm between the city's dominant Mormon population, and non-Mormons who complain of being forced to live by the church's precepts.

After first saying he'd abide by the appeals court ruling, Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson - who's running for re-election this fall - proposed giving up city control of the easement through the park. In exchange, the church would give the city two acres of land in Glendale, a neighborhood west of downtown, for a community center.

Earlier this month, the all-Mormon city council voted 6-0 with one abstention to approve the deal.

"The court denied our application for them to take the case. Obviously, that's disappointing. But it's also not too surprising," church attorney Von Keetch said Monday. "The court takes so few cases, getting on the docket is difficult."

A federal judge sided with the church, but the appeals court overturned that decision in October, ruling the city couldn't create a "First Amendment-free zone."

Umm . . the city doesn't own the property. Rather than the city creating a 1st Amendment-free zone, the LDS church created a trespassing-free zone in which it allows people to traverse its private property without repercussion.

if the church wanted full control of the property they should not have granted the city the easement - simple as that. but since rocky and the city council caved, it looks like the church is going to get what it wanted after all. it just goes to show that having the supreme court on your side is no match against the political power mormons weild in utah.

btw, i wonder if this blunder has caused any shakeup at the church legal department - it's hard to understand how they could not have foreseen this outcome back in 1999.

They couldn't have obtained the property at all without granting an easement. Are you so prejudiced against that church that you cannot look at this issue as it is? If you own something but do not control it, do you own it at all?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consented to allow the public to continue to use this property that belongs to them--with restrictions on their behavior while on the property. Don't like the restrictions? Don't use the property. That's true of all private property. Only a statist would believe it's okay for the state to forbid anyone to control how their property is used by others.

The local mall has rules about conduct and can enforce them by tossing someone out. That's why you can go to the mall, or other private places, and not expect gangs of teenage hoodlums to harass you (most places.) But this church should have to tolerate people collecting in front of ground they regard as sacred to the Lord, mocking the things they hold sacred, using profanity, nudity, whatever they can to assault people going about lawful business on private property, and you're okay with that? Because they are Mormons, they do not deserve that fundamental right of worshipping unmolested?

If it's okay for the Mormons it must be okay for you. Post your address--after all, you get to know the address of the Salt Lake Temple. I'm sure there are some people who would love to come mess with your property rights, since you hold them so lightly.

That isn't whats happening here. This was a blatent attempt by the LDS church to buy the area next to their walled in grounds, where those who do not agree with the LDS chuch walk around with placards and hand out anti-church flyers. If we were talking about a lot next to their property it wouldn't matter, but we're talking about a street which has been turned into a pedestrian only area which abuts a public shopping mall. This piece of "ROADWAY/PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY" should NEVER have been sold to the LDS Church and the only reason it was, appears to be through the work of church members, in the government, who sold a piece of public street because it was in their church's interest. The only way they could get the entire city government to accept the deal was to acknowledge and retain that the property is a public access way, however their goal all along was to move critics of the LDS Church away from their temple by resticting free speech. It is un-American and frankly I have NEVER heard of any branch of government selling a block of street to a private party/company/church for ANY purpose. It just goes to show how powerful the Mormon Church is, and how any group can subborn the interests of the public at large by having it's agents of influence placed strategically in the government.

If government were like golf, the lowest vote would always win.

The candidate with fewer votes would become president.

The bills with fewer votes would pass in the house and senate.

The party in the minority would make the rules in government.

But, this is America where in every government from federal down to city government the majority wins and the majority makes the rules.

In Utah, the Mormons are in the majority and the Mormons make the rules. That is the principle that American government is founded on. But, there are checks and balances and the courts provide the checks and balances in this situation.

It may suck to be in the minority, and the minority can whine all they want, but it is the federal courts that will decide if this final solution is illegal, not the minority.

Protestors can still protest on all four sides of the Plaza. They just can't protest in the middle of the Plaza. In the solution presented, the Mormons get to have thier property rights, and the protestors get to have their protest rights. One person's rights should not infringe on another person's rights.

Public land is baught and sold all of the time, but rarely at $8 million per acre.

Nonsense.... Pulic access = FREE SPEECH. Crossroads mall is (and was always) private property and as such may restrict behavior, Main Steet WAS a public thoroughfare and when the church bought it, it was only sold with the stipulation that Public access would be retained. Salt Lake City did not come begging to the church "please buy this street, we're desperate to sell it"! It was the LDS church that came to the city to buy so that they could "put a park there" (read: get rid of the anti-Morman thorns in our side). The city sold the land (which it shouldn't have, PERIOD) with the access stipulation (for which the church should have backed out, as this ruined their plan, BUT THEY DIDN'T). Unfortunatly for the Mormon Church, the high courts have ruled against their sneaky attempt to silence their critics. I wouldn't give a rats @ss what the church did, had they not used their power and influence to do something totally un-American with public land. I say the city should re-take the land and re-imburse the cost paid for the land, less the cost of returning it to it's origional condition. That's NOT what will end up happening I'm sure, but at the least the Courts will not let this un-American assault on freedom of speech stand!

Another case proves that there are no longer any true property rights in this country. If I own it and let you walk across it, but you are free to spit on my dog and scream in my face, and I can't stop you, no matter how great the provocation...I don't own it anymore.

Sort of, real estate law is very complicated, and I hate to say this, but the judge is right. Without trying to justify this (because I can't because its stupid), if you own a lot, and you let me walk across it every day for years, I can claim that is a right and keep you from restricting me.

Real estate and property law essentially are full of loop holes that can prevent you from using your property as you see fit, or even worse, taking it from you.

They couldn't have obtained the property at all without granting an easement.

you're quite right. life is full of tough choices.

The local mall has rules about conduct...blah blah blah

sure, but the local mall doesn't have a public easement running through its corridors does it?. i agree that free speech can be a bitch but i'm not about to make exceptions just because you think the pavement of the public sidewalks on main street is holy ground. your persecution complex does not motivate me.

Background on the original sale:

In 1999 the city sold the portion of Main Street between South Temple and North Temple streets to the church, which redeveloped the property as a plaza. The city retained a pedestrian easement across it.
However, the city and church agreed in the sales contract that the city's easement would not be a place for protests protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, and that the church could control behavior on the property. Several plaintiffs filed suit against the city, challenging that portion of the agreement, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, holding that the city could not both preserve the pedestrian easement and cede control of expression on it to the church.
Under the settlement proposed by Mayor Rocky Anderson, the city would vacate its pedestrian easement in exchange for 2.1 acres of church-owned property near the Sorenson Multicultural Center in Glendale, plus $5 million in community donations (including $250,000 from the LDS Church Foundation) to build an addition to the center, plus the church's agreement to pay half of the plaintiffs' legal fees in the court case

Non-Mormon Christians get arrested by passing out flyers

Van Gorden, head of the Utah Gospel Mission, was caught up in the dispute when he was arrested on April 7 for handing out literature on the easement. Van Gorden and a partner had refused to leave when asked by a security guard, leading to trespassing charges that were dropped pending the appellate court's ruling.
"I'm happy that the Constitution was upheld," Van Gorden said Monday in answer to the ruling. "The decision made (by the lower court) originally should have never been made."
He took over the Utah Gospel Mission in 1979 and estimates it converts about 30-35 Mormons a year. He said he regularly hands out literature around the Mormon Temple Square, headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which claims 73 percent of the city's population as members.

which it allows people to traverse its private property without repercussion.

No, no, no. Don't you know criminal codes? Each state has to cite a criminal code when they are prosecuting folks for any alleged crimes--included alleged trespassing violations.

With trespassing codes, you must prove "specific intent." In other words, the prosecution must not only prove that some guy was on your property, but that he had specific intent to harm, burglar, or vandalize.

A kid retrieving a baseball from your yard is not subject to "repercussions." A neighbor saving a toddler drowning in your pool is not subject to "repercussions" simply because they are on your property. You must prove they had specific intent to harm person or property.

Hence, street evangelists preaching the gospel to Mormons in this zone have "specific intent" to spiritually save the lives of those who believe that almost all will be saved anyway, one day, even if they serve time in "spirit prison."

Federal judge, as expected, reverses order on Mormon plaza

02.01.03 SALT LAKE CITY A federal judge has reversed his ruling on the Main Street plaza, now saying the church can’t enforce speech restrictions on the disputed section of downtown.
This week’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart was expected. He was required to enter it after a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that speech and behavior restrictions violated the First Amendment — overturning Stewart’s original ruling in the case.
In vacating his previous decision, Stewart said the easement the city retained through the plaza when the street was sold to the church in 1999 is a public forum. He wrote the restrictions are “facially invalid under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
The church had banned assembling, demonstrating, pamphleteering and engaging in “offensive, indecent, obscene, vulgar, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct.” It also banned smoking and bicycling, but those regulations were not challenged in court.
Attorneys for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the city previously had urged Stewart to delay entering a judgment because Mayor Rocky Anderson is now proposing the city vacate the easement in exchange for church property in a west-side neighborhood.
Janelle Eurick, attorney for the Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Stewart’s judgment would not prevent the city from enacting the mayor’s proposal, which could allow the church to re-impose the restrictions.

New plaza built by Mormon Church on Main Street of Salt Lake City as seen from 10th floor of Joseph Smith Memorial Building in October 2000.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promised to keep the plaza unfenced and open 24 hours a day when it bought two acres from the city for $8.1 million in April.
But then the state's predominant religion handed down a long list of rules: No smoking, music, cursing, begging, bicycling, skateboarding. And none of the speechmaking that gave the area the nickname "Soapbox Corner" at the turn of the century.
"It's Main Street, and that kind of says it all," ACLU attorney Stephen Clark said after filing the suit yesterday in U.S. District Court. "The city has in effect given the church a preferred platform right in the heart of the city that is closed to everybody else. The church is free to use this property to get its own message across, while other people are treated basically as second-class citizens."
The city sold the land to the church for $8.1 million. City leaders gave the church exclusive rights to distribute literature and broadcast speeches and music on the block.

Van Gorden, head of the Utah Gospel Mission, was caught up in the dispute

I have a friend who used to work for Walter Martin's outfit & knows & highly respects Van Gorden. Van Gorden also filed a complaint in another "dispute"--this one started by LDS members on staff @ the Utah State Fair & law enforcement officials (some of whom were also LDS church members).

I can't say much "pro" about the ACLU, but the VanGordens used the ACLU to file a complaint vs. the Utah State Fair (go to www.acluutah.org/courts.htm or www.acluutah.org/vangordencomplaint.htm to read the full complaint)

After discriminating vs. the VanGordens for three years ('86-'88) by denying them a booth @ the state fair, these LDS folks exercised some level of tolerance for nine consecutive years in giving access to VanGorden's organization (but only upon Van Gorden finally pointed out to them they were advertising available booth space, yet were denying it to him & his organization).

That all came to a head in '96 when a security cam @ one of the two booths he was operating (some of his materials had been disappearing) caught an irate fair rep...leading to law enforcement officials on hand demanding the camera, which VanGorden promptly handed to his wife & told her to leave (she did so by putting it down her top).

She was then subjected to sexual abuse (repeatedly reaching down her top), physical abuse, and was arrested without charges by law enforcement folks--some of whom were Mormons. Not the best of "witness" I'd say coming out of Utah; but with the Mormons being such outstanding citizens in Utah, what other "criminal activity" is there for law enforcement officials to interdict other than the need to keep "safism" afoot? (safism: making Utah safe for contentious-free Mormonism)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.