02-0882 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.' ; , / r . 'f' hi " A 1"\' . Jd .. h h' T"'ver wa::. "CS .:.~ ..,ern,lart 1.: swas sttiC::JY an :-UJ.'-\ ISSU{:, WOu tillS r.. ure ;:,e cxerrut. "C: a.l1S,. J. There was disr.:ussion iCf,arding access :0 t~:e second fJoo~' and equal participation. Mr. Shaw said he ~r.ought equal \"'f.S aniy equal if you could get there. He alf,O asked to here \1.". Bragg's interpretation. Ivir. Bragg said he only has th:ee trungs to say; (J) He does no: recede from the opinions express()ci in his Augl.l&t 16, 1998 i.1ernorandum, (with no disrespect tc the Chair:nar" he and I hS'/c disagreed cn issues before anc ~nti1 one or both 0[1,;5 is brair. dead, I expect we wit; contin:.Je to disagree on is;;ul:s as long as we know each other); (2) I cJncede in the August 16, opinion and I concede today that the issue is en eX1remel~' close one. J believe the Chairmlll1 and I can agree 0:'1 that. I therefDre would also state tha: the Pastor Uld Mt. McDcnald were quite reasonable in their assumption that the church, liS an Lnstituticn, carm: within the exemption of October 1 1997; (3) lA.s I recall, the questions propounc\ed to me whic.h led to the preparatiun of '1: the AUg'Js: 16 mer:1~dum ciea.:t v...ith outside facilities owned by religious organizations (such as elementary a.1d ~econdary scheels, and hospitals that were not really l::1tegra1 to religious devotions). This is a $lJnday Schooi and therefore, presents yet a clos~r q\Jestion that was not sqiJarely disposed of by the August 16 memorandum. Dr. Richardsml asked Mr. Bragg to clarify his position. M(. Bragg said the rule of interpretation that he relied 011 in the August 16 memorandull1 was that exemptions or excepti.:Hl3 from the general ruh~ i:1 a stat'Jte are to be narroloNly construed. A rule of interpretation the Supreme Court has a;pplied time after time. If I had to take a chan~e on anyone interpretatiol"" I WQuld say t4at the S':mday Sfhool is also subje~t to the accessibility requirements because I cor.stiUed churches as mea::t1ng the 'literal house of worship, but' not the buildings which pro....ide st:condary functions. ~er discussion regarding -K-" church ov.ned buildi."lgs and outside buiJdi:lgs en the church propertj', Mr. Pfeiffer said it was his ~ view that churChes are exempt from Florida S pecific !'~quirements to the same extent that they ~. e exempt from Federal ADA requirements.~.lt. Wiggins f~lt the Legislature intended the same )'f" purpose as the FederaJ Congress by enacting exemptio~'f.)r churches ~U1d similarly, that churches have.tax exempt status. 11r. Wiggins s.a.id he thought Legisla~ion have left it up to the instir..xtions ofworshjp \l,:hether t~.e}' want to provide f~l1y for accessibility in their 0....'l1 free conscious or whether they wa.nt to be n;a..'1dated by Government. He L~ought L1e Florida Statute had been clear in that regard. 1v1'.r. Wiggings asked Mr. Warren if their Sunday School was pa..rt of the worship for the chl:fch. Mr. Wa.rren said they considered the worship a.'1d the trai.r.i..-:.g equally valuable nnd imponant and therefore is part of the church. There needs to be trab.i.ag in order to be i..ltelligent worship l'vir. Walthour as!ced ifit was an occupancy cl~.ssification. Mr. Kopczynski asked~. Bragg if it mattered whether or not there was fi.!lanci.d gain. Mr. Bragg s.aid only if you first determine that this building does n.ct come 'Mthin any exemption. Mr, Bragg said he wanted to make a couple more comments; (1) In iesponse to Mr. Wiggins, if the Legislature had used the same I angl..\ age Congress used, it would have beer. dear. We would;'l't be holding this conversation at all and these two gentlemen wouldn't be here; (2) In response to t\.~L'. Walthcur, I did view it as an occupancy classification rather that an Institution; (3) To Mr. Kopczynski, I wou~d say that the presence or absence offinancia1 gain ',1,'culd be material to the presen(;e or absence' ofhe.rdsrup, but hardship is not an issue if the Commission determines that Ihty come within the exemption in the Erst place. lfthey come within the ex.cm~ticn, the piesence o. absence of hardship is immaterial. ~fr. Bragg said the Ol'jy other CO;t'.me~'. he wanted to make was. whe~her the Sl.!nda.y School is integral to the process of worship; (1) It's ar. iss'-le of fact fox the Commission t:) determine; it is r~c.t 2.r. issue of law fer me to :tdvise Or!; (2) r believe the Pastor and the church he represents are uniquely qualified to r.1a.i.;e that det;:rmination. ! do not beli.eve any of us can second