• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Minnesota Town Grants Church A ‘Whites Only’ Permit

Andy_Ross

Penultimate Amazing
Andy_Ross
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
66,988
The City Council of Murdock, Minnesota recently granted a conditional use permit allowing a religious group to declare its new church a strictly “Whites Only” place of worship.

The decision by city leaders has divided the small farming town into heated debate.

Outraged residents, defensive leaders of the religious group, city attorneys and the mayor himself have all weighed in.
Click to expand...

The public controversy surrounding the new church began when the AFA was forced to apply for a zoning permit to use the newly purchased building as a place of worship. This was because the church sat inside a residential zone.

Despite opposition voiced by residents at the public hearing, the Murdock City Council voted to grant the church a permit to use the building as a worship place—and enforce its “Whites Only” restriction.

Residents have been outraged by the council’s decision.
Click to expand...

https://percolately.com/minnesota-church-whites-only-permit/
 
People leaving church services openly wondered why people were standing outside the building and taking their pictures using their cell phones...
 
Mumbles said:
People leaving church services openly wondered why people were standing outside the building and taking their pictures using their cell phones...
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sort of doxing the parishioners.
 
acbytesla said:
As much as I despise this, I don't think the town had a choice. Maybe.

The question is, is this a public accommodation or a private one? People have a right to limit their private social gatherings, but they cannot refuse a public accommodation based on race.
Click to expand...

If their doors are thrown open to the public for services, surely they must be a place of pub accom? 'The white public at large' isn't a recognized public sector.

Eta: Wikipedia says federal law specifically exempts religious establishments as places of public accommodation. I hate federal law sometimes. If they don't pay taxes, they could at least not be dickheads.

Also, SLPLC says these church owners are a recognized hate group. That's gotta take some righteous wind out of their sails.

The town has 200 residents. I wonder if this group was planning on starting up a little white supremacist getaway, in a semi-secluded area?
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Interesting. Sort of doxing the parishioners.
Click to expand...

Not saying it's happened yet, mind you, and I'll take no position on whether or not it *should* happen.

Actually, lemme change that a bit - a part of me would honestly prefer if various "race X only" groups could just find a town to take over and stay there and leave everyone else the hell alone already. And in return, we leave them alone too.

But I would rather expect it *will* happen if people left while showing license plates, facers, and the like, regardless. And this is...not quite enough for my tastes. as far as living separately goes.
 
Venom said:
What do they have in mind when they think white?
Click to expand...

A spokesman for the church:

"We believe that as Northern Europeans it is not only our birthright but our obligation to maintain that ancestral memory and give worship and fealty to our gods and our ancestors.”

Neo Nazi crap, frankly.
 
dudalb said:
A spokesman for the church:

"We believe that as Northern Europeans it is not only our birthright but our obligation to maintain that ancestral memory and give worship and fealty to our gods and our ancestors.”

Neo Nazi crap, frankly.
Click to expand...

I'd act shocked but I'm not an actor.
 
dudalb said:
A spokesman for the church:

"We believe that as Northern Europeans it is not only our birthright but our obligation to maintain that ancestral memory and give worship and fealty to our gods and our ancestors.”

Neo Nazi crap, frankly.
Click to expand...

And more of the exclusivity of white, as it were.
 
I hate this as much as anyone, but the First Amendment is a thing. Freedom of association is also a thing. The residents of this town can protest, they can shun, etc, but they have no right to dictate what a religion has to believe or who they can accept as members.
 
xjx388 said:
I hate this as much as anyone, but the First Amendment is a thing. Freedom of association is also a thing. The residents of this town can protest, they can shun, etc, but they have no right to dictate what a religion has to believe or who they can accept as members.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but they do have a right to choose whether or not to issue a permit for a building in a residential zone to be allowed to turn into a whites only church. Of course as we know the individuals on the council voted that their town should have a whites only church instead of not having one, that their town was a good fit for a whites only church. And just to recognize that this was a real option, they could have voted that somewhere else would have been a better place to have tax free discussions about white supremacy in a whites only church by voting no.
 
dirtywick said:
Perhaps so, but they do have a right to choose whether or not to issue a permit for a building in a residential zone to be allowed to turn into a whites only church. Of course as we know the individuals on the council voted that their town should have a whites only church instead of not having one, that their town was a good fit for a whites only church. And just to recognize that this was a real option, they could have voted that somewhere else would have been a better place to have tax free discussions about white supremacy in a whites only church by voting no.
Click to expand...

Would they not have to be able to give a good reason for refusing the permit that had nothing to do with the actual beliefs of the church?
It is my understanding that you have to follow a set of rules in most communities when it comes to zoning. Making up new rules or falsely and frivolously applying rules when it is obvious that the intention was to block the permit for reasons that defy what appears to be a protection under the Constitution would be playing with fire - IMHO.

edited to add:

Manager to waiter: "Tell that black guy he can't eat here because he's black!"
Waiter: We can't do that! It's racist and against the Constitution!"
Manager: He's wearing a Lakers jersey. Tell him we have a rule against wearing Lakers jerseys."
 
Last edited:
rockinkt said:
Would they not have to be able to give a good reason for refusing the permit that had nothing to do with the actual beliefs of the church?
It is my understanding that you have to follow a set of rules in most communities when it comes to zoning. Making up new rules or falsely and frivolously applying rules when it is obvious that the intention was to block the permit for reasons that defy what appears to be a protection under the Constitution would be playing with fire - IMHO.

edited to add:

Manager to waiter: "Tell that black guy he can't eat here because he's black!"
Waiter: We can't do that! It's racist and against the Constitution!"
Manager: He's wearing a Lakers jersey. Tell him we have a rule against wearing Lakers jerseys."
Click to expand...
That's almost entirely what zoning is for: making up new rules for things that aren't illegal but are socially noxious to have in close proximity.

Although it was the wrong call, I can understand the city's decision. It would have invited an even more socially noxious legal battle as white supremacist groups all over the nation descended to make a point and precedent.

A proper test of the restriction would be to have a Black guy try to attend services there, and then sue the church for racial discrimination. Even churches need ADA ramps.
 
rockinkt said:
Would they not have to be able to give a good reason for refusing the permit that had nothing to do with the actual beliefs of the church?
It is my understanding that you have to follow a set of rules in most communities when it comes to zoning. Making up new rules or falsely and frivolously applying rules when it is obvious that the intention was to block the permit for reasons that defy what appears to be a protection under the Constitution would be playing with fire - IMHO.

edited to add:

Manager to waiter: "Tell that black guy he can't eat here because he's black!"
Waiter: We can't do that! It's racist and against the Constitution!"
Manager: He's wearing a Lakers jersey. Tell him we have a rule against wearing Lakers jerseys."
Click to expand...

Of course I appreciate the irony in using a whites only restaurant as an example to argue the pro side of a whites only church.

But to answer your question I have no idea what rules they have when it comes to zoning I have no idea what the rules are or aren’t, or whether or not in this case they were or would have been applied frivolously. Simply declaring something a religion doesn’t necessarily make it so.

All I know is that they held a vote, which implies there’s a choice in the matter, and they chose to allow it.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
That's almost entirely what zoning is for: making up new rules for things that aren't illegal but are socially noxious to have in close proximity.

Although it was the wrong call, I can understand the city's decision. It would have invited an even more socially noxious legal battle as white supremacist groups all over the nation descended to make a point and precedent.

A proper test of the restriction would be to have a Black guy try to attend services there, and then sue the church for racial discrimination. Even churches need ADA ramps.
Click to expand...

Personally I’d rather have that legal battle than the national press and recognition of hosting whites only establishments.
 
Craig4 said:
Heh heh....they're about to find out.
Click to expand...


The photos may come in handy when they have to do contact tracing. I wouldn't bother the white ******** at the church until after everybody has been vaccinated.
 
xjx388 said:
I hate this as much as anyone, but the First Amendment is a thing. Freedom of association is also a thing. The residents of this town can protest, they can shun, etc, but they have no right to dictate what a religion has to believe or who they can accept as members.
Click to expand...

Pretty much where I stand.However I hope the local police keep a close eye on this group, and first time they break a law they come down onthem like a brick wall.
Ans first time they violate any city building code come down on them like a brick law.
BTW these kinds of groups are making a major push in Minnesota, because of the heavily increased Latino presence in Minnesota.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom