SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA RULING The Battle will Continue A Victory and an Appeal
TST has been fighting for the right to deliver an invocation at a Scottsdale, Arizona city council meeting. This opportunity has been afforded to other religious organizations. While rejecting Scottsdale city officials’ claim that The Satanic Temple is not a “real” religion, a US District Judge ruled that religious discrimination was not the reason for their invocation being denied, in spite of blatant evidence showing otherwise.
In the latest development of a four-year-long legal battle that has cost taxpayers from the city of Scottsdale an excess of $170k, a US District judge ruled that despite a slew of discriminatory commentary publicly documented against The Satanic Temple by Scottsdale city officials, there was no means to prove that their refusal to allow a Satanic invocation was based in religious discrimination.
While disappointing, and divorced from reality, the court did reject Scottsdale’s argument that The Satanic Temple is not a “real religion”. While the ruling on discrimination is problematic, this component is a significant victory for TST. With this fact established, TST will be filing an appeal to address the evident discrimination.
TST attorney, Stu de Haan, had this to say about the outcome:
“Though disappointing, this ruling hinged on a factual issue rather than a legal failure on the part of The Satanic Temple. The Court rejected the City’s claims that we are an illegitimate religion and that we failed to show that we had legal standing to sue. Instead, the Court accepted the City’s claim that this decision was purely administrative and not made at the request or by the influence of the City Council and Mayor.
Despite evidence showing the brazen and outward disdain and assertions that this minority religion would not be given a rightful place at the table because of their religion, the Court found that there was not sufficient evidence to tie this to the ultimate decision. Of course, we very much disagree. We will discuss whether or not to bring this dispute to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals moving forward. This ruling will in no way impact other ongoing litigation as these situations tend to be very fact-specific.”
|