An attorney representing a Maine church that is suing a university system for allegedly refusing to sell a property because of the church’s religious objections to same-sex marriage has warned of “broader implications” if the case is not resolved in the church’s favor.
Last year, Calvary Chapel Belfast filed a lawsuit against the University of Maine System after the institution rescinded an offer to buy a school property, allegedly due to local outrage over the church’s religious views.
In August of the previous year, Calvary Chapel successfully bid to purchase the Hutchinson Center at the University of Maine in Belfast. However, after extensive local backlash, the university rescinded the deal and later accepted an offer from Waldo Community Action Partners instead.
Calvary Chapel filed the complaint last November, alleging that university officials wrongfully withdrew their offer due to ongoing local religious hostility toward the church.
In May, U.S. District Judge Stacey D. Neumann, a Biden appointee, dismissed Calvary Chapel’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that the church had “produced no evidence of impermissible religious animus from within UMS.”
Judge Neumann also wrote that “the alleged substantive and procedural departures are not probative of any intent by the System to discriminate on the basis of religion or adopt the community's religious animus.”
He explained that “the record demonstrates [System Vice Chancellor of Finance Ryan Low] made the decision to rescind the award and issue a new RFP based on one of the same factors the second-appeal-level administrator would usually consider: cost savings.”
Since then, the church has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, requesting an injunction in their favor. A reply brief was filed last week as part of that ongoing legal process.
Liberty Counsel Associate Vice President of Legal Affairs Daniel Schmid, who is assisting in the church’s legal case, told The Christian Post that rejecting the lawsuit could have “broader implications.”
Schmid challenged the claims that there was no religious animus in the district court decision, asserting that the UMS vice chancellor for finance “admitted that the cost savings rationale was already basically included in the original procurement process.”
He further explained, “We had testimony from numerous government officials showing that it was the level of religious hostility put to the university by donors, alumni, faculty, employees, and even legislators all saying, 'if you sell this building to the church, we have to seriously rethink our support for the university system,’” he said.
“They were under immense pressure. The procurement officer who was in charge of all these things said she had never seen this much animosity or response to any procurement process. So, there was ample evidence that there was hostility towards the church's religious views.”
“The First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of religion,” he added. “To allow a government to rescind an otherwise fair bidding process because the entity that won is a church would run roughshod over it,” he warned.
