Thursday, November 29, 2007

Litchfield Protests ACR Post!

Ranking Litchfield Democrats (who else?) are simply furious with us!

A two month old post of ours seems to be stiring up trouble in spiffier than thou Litchfield.

Seems they're not wild about the picture we used; maybe they'd have been happier with this:

...or even this!

"The Star of David may not comply with the District"; Litchfield Historic Commission Chair, Wendy Kuhne

Read all about it here: Image on Blog Site Is Fueling a Controversy in Litchfield

..or here:

Litchfield County Times

It's amazing!
All they needed to do in the first place was obey federal law; but they can't seem to grasp that notion!

More sophisticated land-use experts have largely come to the only logical conclusion when it comes to dealing with religious institutions of any kind.
Leave them alone.

Indeed, considering RLUIPA requires the burden be placed not on the applicant, but rather on whatever government entity is seeking to regulate a religious institution and then the government entity must demonstrate a Compelling Interest.

Such a demonstration has yet to be illustrated by the Litchfield Historical Commission; thus their actions thus far are undoubtedly illegal as will any other actions they pursue without first demonstrating their legitimate need....their compelling interest.


  1. This reminds me of a case that occurred in the late 1990's, or maybe even around 2000 or 2001. A student at a school was told he couldn't wear a Star of David because it looked like a "Gang Symbol" and promoted violence. Even after parents complained, the school wouldn't do anything until the Jewish family filed a lawsuit, and won. What the hell is the matter with people?

  2. If anyone knows the actual history of Litchfield, they would realize that the Methodist church, just a few doors towards town on the same road, faced a bit of controversy over its design when it was proposed. In fact, I believe the roof was similarly part of the discussion, as it has stripes. So I don't see this current zoning discussion as anti-semitism and I don't think the Lubavitch folks do either. It's just hyper-zoning, which is part of what has helped the town maintain its character. Religious institutions should certainly not be exempt from any zoning considerations.

  3. >>Religious institutions should certainly not be exempt from any zoning considerations.

    Unfortunately; federal law doesn't agree with you.

    From Cancun


  4. Willingly I accept. An interesting theme, I will take part.

  5. It agree, very good message


Please keep it clean on topic.
If you are trying to send ACR a message use email instead: