Lawyers representing the Chatham County Board of Commissioners in North Carolina have firmly denied allegations made by The Summit Church, led by prominent pastor J.D. Greear, regarding civil rights violations linked to the county’s rejection of a rezoning application for nearly 100 acres intended for its Chapel Hill campus. The church, known for its dynamic multi-campus approach and Greear’s past presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention, has taken legal action that has stirred significant discussion within the community.
In a detailed 24-page response, attorneys Patrick H. Flanagan and Samantha M. Owens argued that the county’s decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons essential for the orderly operation of local governance. They asserted, "Defendant did not engage in, promote, or further any policy or practice which deprived Plaintiff of any rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this land." This legal stance aims to uphold the county’s authority while addressing the church’s claims.
The Summit Church’s lawsuit, which spans an extensive 743 pages, seeks to uphold its civil rights as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The church contends that there were no substantial grounds for the denial of its rezoning request and has raised concerns about potential religious discrimination.
Specific allegations from the church highlight comments made by County Vice Chair Mary Roodkowsky, suggesting that The Summit Church does not align with the “rural church” image that fits the county’s profile. This statement has raised eyebrows and added fuel to the church’s argument that it faces discrimination due to its size and urban character, contrasting with the county’s self-identified progressive stance.
As part of its legal action, The Summit Church is requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina compel the county to approve its rezoning application and associated site plan. The church is also seeking a declaratory judgment that the county’s actions violate RLUIPA, along with reimbursement of legal costs and any damages deemed appropriate.
In response, Chatham County officials have sought to dismiss the church’s complaint, citing various defenses such as governmental immunity. Their legal response emphasizes that all actions taken were executed in good faith and in accordance with applicable laws. The county has also requested a jury trial to address any contested factual issues, indicating that they are prepared to defend their position vigorously.
The ongoing legal battle has sparked discussions within the community about the intersection of faith, local governance, and civil rights. Many are closely watching how this case unfolds, as it could have broader implications for religious organizations seeking to establish or expand their presence in various jurisdictions.
As this situation continues to evolve, one thing is clear: the dialogue around religious freedom and local governance is far from over. For those interested in following the developments of this case and its potential impact on religious liberties, resources and updates can be found at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Stay tuned for more updates as this intriguing legal saga unfolds, and remember, whether you’re in the pews or the courtroom, faith and community often walk hand in hand.