smac97 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 Here: Quote FFRF {Freedom From Religion Foundation} questions free bus rides for Mormons March 9, 2020 The mayor of Salt Lake City must reconsider a problematic deal that offers free bus rides for members of the Mormon church, contends the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A local resident reported to the state/church watchdog that Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall recently announced an agreement between the city, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Utah Transit Authority that would allow people to use a ticket to the church’s general conference also as a ticket for public transportation. A partnership that allows members of the church to ride the bus for free during their attendance at this church event is a serious constitutional violation, FFRF asserts. “While expanding transit accessibility and affordability for Salt Lake City residents is an admirable endeavor, extending this benefit to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in order to facilitate their attendance at a church event shows favoritism to Mormons and excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes. “This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” I wonder if the "agreement between the city, the Church ... and the Utah Transit Authority" includes the Church compensating UTA for conference-going ticketholders who use UTA resources. If so, then I don't see how this is a constitutional issue. However, if SLC is making these resources free, then there may be an issue. Plus, the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac
PacMan Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 Unless is it is safer, cheaper, and easier to administer than all the police barricades and traffic re-routing. Then there is a government interest. 2
Calm Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Are tickets usually given out to nonmembers or easily accessible to nonmembers? If not, I don't think that is generally incorrect. In order to facilitate parking and ease traffic, it makes sense imo for the Church to pay the city a fee. Win win for both. Only if it really causes traffic issues should the city consider waiving it for the Conference without compensation, but .I would hope the Church provides it. Negotiations sounds like there is a price being discussed imo.
smac97 Posted March 10, 2020 Author Posted March 10, 2020 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Quote the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Are tickets usually given out to nonmembers or easily accessible to nonmembers? I would think they are available. 12 minutes ago, Calm said: If not, I don't think that is generally incorrect. I disagree. Nonmembers are not excluded from General Conference. 12 minutes ago, Calm said: In order to facilitate parking and ease traffic, it makes sense imo for the Church to pay the city a fee. Win win for both. I agree. And if that is what is happening, then I don't see a legal issue. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 10, 2020 Author Posted March 10, 2020 Just now, PacMan said: Unless is it is safer, cheaper, and easier to administer than all the police barricades and traffic re-routing. Then there is a government interest. Does SLC offer similar "free" transportation to attendees at other events? If so, which ones? If not, then wouldn't that lack be indicative of preferential treatment? Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: Nonmembers are not excluded from General Conference. Perhaps not, but they won’t be likely know how to get tickets through the local bishop even if they do end up attending unless invited by members. So it should have been phrased better, but if the reason for rejection is relatively exclusive use of conference tickets by members, I think that a valid concern.
Tacenda Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: Here: I wonder if the "agreement between the city, the Church ... and the Utah Transit Authority" includes the Church compensating UTA for conference-going ticketholders who use UTA resources. If so, then I don't see how this is a constitutional issue. However, if SLC is making these resources free, then there may be an issue. Plus, the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Only those that have tickets constitutes something like a paid ticket wouldn't it? But they've done this in the past as well, didn't bother me that much. I think they are eliminating maybe pollution and traffic problems.
smac97 Posted March 10, 2020 Author Posted March 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Calm said: Perhaps not, but they won’t be likely know how to get tickets through the local bishop even if they do end up attending unless invited by members. So it should have been phrased better, but if the reason for rejection is relatively exclusive use of conference tickets by members, I think that a valid concern. I agree. However, the non-exclusivity of attendees would likely be a factor. Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 Its cool because you don't have to pay someone to work on Sunday, thus contributing to the necessities of some who have to break the sabbath. You can just cause them to break it for free now.
mtomm Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Does SLC offer similar "free" transportation to attendees at other events? If so, which ones? If not, then wouldn't that lack be indicative of preferential treatment? Thanks, -Smac I always get a free ride when I participate in the Salt Lake Half Marathon.
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 I think you would be okay legally seeing it as a congestion issue and an attempt to alleviate it. Is this aimed more at out of towners or locals?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Here: I wonder if the "agreement between the city, the Church ... and the Utah Transit Authority" includes the Church compensating UTA for conference-going ticketholders who use UTA resources. If so, then I don't see how this is a constitutional issue. However, if SLC is making these resources free, then there may be an issue. Plus, the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac The new mayor, who is not a member of the Church, touched on this in her state of the city address. She is highly environmentally conscious, and my understanding is the point of this is to encourage public transit use and cut down on pollution from vehicle traffic. Perhaps the Church is compensating UTA, but I didn’t get the impression that was part of the proposal. 1
Amulek Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: I wonder if the "agreement between the city, the Church ... and the Utah Transit Authority" includes the Church compensating UTA for conference-going ticketholders who use UTA resources. If so, then I don't see how this is a constitutional issue. I take the quote from the mayor's tweet that "[w]e're in final negotiations and both sides are committed to ensuring over 100K people can @RideUTA" to mean that the city is negotiating pricing with the church - albeit, likely reduced pricing (which would be expected). I suppose it's possible the city could offer significantly low enough pricing for it to potentially raise constitutional concerns, but in reality I'm doubtful that will be an issue.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Here: I wonder if the "agreement between the city, the Church ... and the Utah Transit Authority" includes the Church compensating UTA for conference-going ticketholders who use UTA resources. If so, then I don't see how this is a constitutional issue. However, if SLC is making these resources free, then there may be an issue. Plus, the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac I know I wouldn't want to be stuck on a bus with people who had come from all over the world while the Corona virus thing is still on the loose. Aren't we supposed to be avoiding gatherings of large numbers of people? Trying to stay about 6' apart, at least. Meh, was this bus arrangement made before or after we agreed to avoid gathering with large groups of people? Are people still riding buses these days? And touching people's hands, and things, as if the Corona virus was not on the loose anymore? 1
bsjkki Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: I know I wouldn't want to be stuck on a bus with people who had come from all over the world while the Corona virus thing is still on the loose. Aren't we supposed to be avoiding gatherings of large numbers of people? Trying to stay about 6' apart, at least. Meh, was this bus arrangement made before or after we agreed to avoid gathering with large groups of people? Are people still riding buses these days? And touching people's hands, and things, as if the Corona virus was not on the loose anymore? I agree, this does not seem to be proactive or wise at this point. The church should encourage people to follow CDC guidelines. 1
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, Ahab said: I know I wouldn't want to be stuck on a bus with people who had come from all over the world while the Corona virus thing is still on the loose. Aren't we supposed to be avoiding gatherings of large numbers of people? Trying to stay about 6' apart, at least. Meh, was this bus arrangement made before or after we agreed to avoid gathering with large groups of people? Are people still riding buses these days? And touching people's hands, and things, as if the Corona virus was not on the loose anymore? The church is not encouraging international travel to conference so presumably they are not distributing international tickets. 1
Ahab Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The church is not encouraging international travel to conference so presumably they are not distributing international tickets. Hmm. I'm thinking the bus tickets were likely going to be offered at hotels and motels and perhaps some stores in Salt Lake City for people planning to ride buses in Salt Lake City to get over to Temple Square. I wasn't thinking they'd check to see where they came from. Edited March 10, 2020 by Ahab
Boanerges Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 In light of today's announcement this appears to be moot. 3
The Nehor Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 Yep, like most problems if you leave it alone it solves itself. 3
Jane_Doe Posted March 12, 2020 Posted March 12, 2020 On 3/10/2020 at 1:24 PM, smac97 said: Here: I wonder if the "agreement between the city, the Church ... and the Utah Transit Authority" includes the Church compensating UTA for conference-going ticketholders who use UTA resources. If so, then I don't see how this is a constitutional issue. However, if SLC is making these resources free, then there may be an issue. Plus, the conference is open to the public, so the above article is incorrect in claiming that this arrangement "excludes the nonreligious and members of all other religions." Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Ok, obviously this isn't going to impact Conference this spring. But as for the general idea: having free transport to Conference will encourage people to use. This reduces traffic jams, packed lots, need to police directing traffic, air pollution, etc. It's just an easy win for all. This objector guy really needs to 1) see the bigger picture, 2) do you really have nothing better to do than gripe some folks riding the bus for free 4 days a year? 2
The Nehor Posted March 12, 2020 Posted March 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeh, but hasn't all this been cancelled? If it was don’t you think someone would have mentioned it in the thread already?
Robert F. Smith Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: If it was don’t you think someone would have mentioned it in the thread already? Yeh, I guess you're right. Formidable logic.
Recommended Posts