Florida Man Sues Two Libraries for Religious Discrimination

yes I totally agree with what IL Librarian said, and I also think that the library should no hold those limits and bounds, regarding the religion. Those kinds of social actitivies should not be brought in practice as humans. If the library does continue this, we shall be afraid of church choir singers singing pretty little liars theme song against other religion. This could someday really come true, and if this happens there would be war, killings, massacre all because of a cause of religion, after all every big things starts from small.

I find it interesting that the majority of the people crying foul over a policy that tries to separate church and state are the same people who try to ban books in the same library they discuss homosexuality, witchcraft, or contain foul language.  They are also the same people who want nanny software on the public computers because they want to monitor what other people are reading or watching.  Pick one.  You can’t have it both ways.  Either you believe in free speech for all, or you don’t. 

Anonymous says, "There’s a separation of church and state in public schools, I would think libraries would fall under that too. "  Ouch!!!  Do you really feel that the American Public Library System, the epitome of the FREE exchange of ideas, should be as restrictive as public schools? 

If a library has a meeting room that is offered to the tax paying public,  it should be offered to all tax payers.  Noise levels, saftey considerations, money collection, and disruptions of service to other taxpayers should be the only limitations.  If you interpret that to mean no religious groups, where does that kind of prejudice end?

Anonymous says, "There’s a separation of church and state in public schools, I would think libraries would fall under that too. "  Ouch!!!  Do you really feel that the American Public Library System, the epitome of the FREE exchange of ideas, should be as restrictive as public schools? 

If a library has a meeting room that is offered to the tax paying public,  it should be offered to all tax payers.  Noise levels, saftey considerations, money collection, and disruptions of service to other taxpayers should be the only limitations.  If you interpret that to mean no religious groups, where does that kind of prejudice end?

The claim that libraries should be able to ban religious services does not make sense. If libaries allow community groups to use rooms in the library, than specifically banning reigious services is discrimination against religion. Many Churches and other religious groups do not have the resources to have their own buildings. I fully think that if library rooms are open for public use, than Muslim, Christian, Jewish and other religious groups should be allowed to use them. This is especially true because trying the line between a seminar and a religious service involves content based distinctions that are inherently violations of the first admendment.

If as Verdugo claims, "we will read from the Bible, pray, and sing religious songs if that is permitted by your noise policies,” it sounds like a religious service to me.  Go to a church!

Both in practice and in principal I strongly support the library’s policy prohibiting CHURCHES from holding religious SERVICES in library meeting rooms. 

But the Christian Family Coalition isn’t a church and it didn’t request permission to hold a service in the meeting room.

The CFC is primarially a political organization and a seminar is a seminar, not a service. 

To me it looks like the library director read the word "Christian" and her knee jerked. 

To be fair, and in deference to IL Librarian’s previous post, I’ll assume that Director Colee’s knee would have jerked in the same way if she had read the word "Muslim" or Jewish" or "Wiccan" or "Jain" in the letter requesting the use of the meeting space.  

In my opinion Director Colee misinterpreted the request and consequently applied a reasonable policy in an incorrect, and descriminatory, manner.   

It sounds to me like while Verdugo was calling his meeting a "Seminar," he was intending to hold a "Service" instead, and that may be where a lot of the contention is.  In my mind, the two are very different things: a seminar is something like a lecture, where one or a few people address the attendees about a specific subject, and there may, occasionally, be input from the attendees.  A service would include praying, singing, et cetera, just as any church service in a church would.

What I find offensive is the plaintiff’s blatant waste of a non-profit’s time and meager funds to defend against these lawsuits solely to further a religious point.  The plaintiff should be ashamed…

Libraries cannot discriminate due to religion or in any other way. But if the group was meeting to hold a church "ceremony", then that is a different issue. I don’t think libraries should allow their facilities to hold a church "ceremony" because then you would probably have other people coming in with their own views that don’t have a church to hold their "ceremonies" in and try to use the room for that as well.. Now if they are just "meeting" to prepare something they are planning to do for a ceremony they will have and reading from the bible and singing in accordance to noise level just happens to be part of their "meetings" then it is ok.

Separation of church and state does not mean not religious activities can take place in a government building. It means the government does not endorse or promote a religion. Libraries have books about religion, even copies of the Koran and the Bible. The use of the meeting room should be based on a policy that defines the guidelines for use, not the group using it if that group meets the general conditions (usually non-profit, community based). The conditions for use might stipulate no noise that can be heard outside the room, no food, no money collection, for example but not the content of the program. The conditions might also stipulate that use if for one time events and programs, not ongoing programs (like church services that are held weekly).

 “Public libraries should not be posting what amounts to ‘No Religious People Allowed Here’ signs on their public meeting-room doors,”

Yeah, right.  What they’re posting is "No religious ceremonies allowed."  Way to conflate, Mr. Lawyer.  You should know better.

Agreed.  Good points.  Why is “nonprofit, noncommercial, and nonreligious functions.”  so difficult to understand?  And why aren’t any other religious groups suing???

Would the library deny a request from a Muslim or Wicca organization? I doubt it. Nobody would be confronted by the content of the meeting unless they chose to attend so I don’t see why it is permissable to discriminate against them. This is also embarrasing for our profession when libraries have allowed their meeting rooms to be used by NAMBLA, which obviously advocates illegal activity. FYI, the First Amendment specifically prohibits you from denying people the right to practice religion. Funny how most people never seem to remember the phrase after the first comma.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

While libraries are public places, religious organizations have a CHURCH or other location for which they can host seminars.  There’s a separation of church and state in public schools, I would think libraries would fall under that too.