What government funds are involved?
Every commercial airport in the U.S. is funded by a long-term commitment by the
airlines to pay landing fees (for the airport side) and terminal rents (for the
terminal, or land side). These use agreements do not allow rents to be taken
into any other government use.
Airports are governed by airport committees consisting of corporate real estate
people from the airlines that use the airport, usually chaired by the
representative from the airline that has the most landed weight at that airport.
For many years airports have included chapels as a kind of concession to people
traveling through the airports -- DFW, ATL and ORD are three I know of.
Most of these airport chapels have local chaplains assigned to them, but
usually unpaid from airport funds. Most of these chapels are sufficiently
generic enough they'd be suitable for Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain,
Unitarian, or atheist contemplation.
Since most of the corporate real estate people are lawyers, but rarely First
Amendment lawyers, the First Amendment issues are almost always discussed, and
dismissed. The facilities are paid by fees from tickets purchased by travelers
and rents from airlines; the fees might arguably be a tax, but accommodation of
the taxpayers' beliefs never came up as a prohibited action (airlines are not
prohibited from honoring religious needs of passengers).
I think one would need to do a lot of work to establish any government action
involved in these cases.
Has anyone ever complained about the chapel already at MCO?
Airport FAQ:
Is there a chapel/church services inside the terminal?
Orlando International Airport has a chapel inside the terminal, located
just beyond the west security
checkpoint (Gates 1-59), which can be accessed by any passenger holding
a boarding pass.
Orlando International Airport (MCO) - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Orlando International Airport (MCO) - Frequently Asked Q...How do I cross the
terminal from Baggage Claim A to Baggage Claim B? Terminal A and Terminal B are
opposite sides of the same building, which is only 525 ... |
| |
| View on www.orlandoairports... | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
I'll admit airport governance is widely misunderstood and a dark closet to most
people, including reporters who should know better. This article identifies the
airport committee only in the murkiest of terms (Congressmen are not members).
Orlando airport committee votes to keep TSA at MCO
| |
| | | | | |
| Orlando airport committee votes to keep TSA at MCOAn Orlando International
Airport committee voted Monday to keep the TSA as the airport's security staff
instead of hiring a private security firm. |
| |
| View on www.mynews13.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
But I doubt that makes this a government establishment issue.
When I served on airport committees (for American Airlines), the most
complaints we got was on chapel signage. Passengers found it difficult to
figure out where they were.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
From: Alan E Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport
#yiv3162872023 #yiv3162872023 -- _filtered #yiv3162872023
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3162872023
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3162872023
#yiv3162872023 p.yiv3162872023MsoNormal, #yiv3162872023
li.yiv3162872023MsoNormal, #yiv3162872023 div.yiv3162872023MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3162872023 a:link,
#yiv3162872023 span.yiv3162872023MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3162872023 a:visited, #yiv3162872023
span.yiv3162872023MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3162872023
span.yiv3162872023hoenzb {}#yiv3162872023 span.yiv3162872023EmailStyle18
{color:#1F497D;}#yiv3162872023 .yiv3162872023MsoChpDefault {} _filtered
#yiv3162872023 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3162872023
div.yiv3162872023WordSection1 {}#yiv3162872023 I agree with Chip that an
accommodation analysis may permit the creation of these facilities, but the
analysis changes if we are evaluating a general funding program where no
substantial burden on religious liberty requires accommodation. One
important difference is that the accommodation can be tailored to religious
needs. The courts have upheld accommodations for religious individuals,
institutions, and practices that are not available for secular individuals,
institutions, and practices. A funding program operating outside of the
accommodation context must be neutral and cannot discriminate in favor of
religion. I do not consider the government funding of a chapel for prayer, even
a non-denominational chapel, to be a neutral expenditure allocated on the
basis of neutral criteria. If funding for secular contemplation rooms were also
available (or if the uses of the rooms were sufficiently generic), one might
avoid the neutrality issue. But we would still be left with cases like Tilton
and the remaining Establishment Clause principle that government funds cannot
be used for religious instruction, proselytizing or worship – even if the funds
are allocated according to ostensibly neutral criteria. Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport Is this any
different than creating chapels or worship/reflection spaces on a state
university campus, in a county hospital, or on a military base? What holds
these examples (including the airport) together is the desire to accommodate
the worship needs of patrons/participants who have no ready alternative
available (they are far from home, perhaps trapped physically for a long time,
and perhaps under unusual stress). So government may make these spaces
available, but may not encourage or promote their use. Eugene's airport
example may just reflect the likely "gerrymandering" of traditional chapel
space in the design associated with Christian worship. We would think very
differently about all this if the government set up a program for helping
nonprofits more generally (like schools or social service providers) construct
new space, and permitted the construction of worship spaces within such a
program. That would go to the core of the Establishment Clause prohibition on
government financial support for salary of clergy or the building of churches.
What Nyquist and Tilton said about that seems to me quite good law still, and
it has nothing to do with denominational neutrality. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at
11:18 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: A blog
reader asked me about this, and I thought I’d pose the question to the list.
Orlando Airport is apparently spending $250,000 to build a “reflection room”
where Muslim travelers can more conveniently pray, especially given the
expansion of the airline Emirates at the airport.
Seehttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-orlando-international-airport-reflection-room-20150808-story.html
. The reflection room is in addition to “the small, nondenominational chapel
tucked away on Airside B, just past the security checkpoint,” where Muslim
travelers sometimes now go (and where there are some prayer rugs available for
them). The reflection room would be open to all religious groups, as I
understand it, but will be primarily designed with Muslim travelers in mind.
Now I don’t think this should be a problematic accommodation, any
more than serving kosher meals (or halal meals) in those government cafeterias
in which there is sufficient demand. But I wonder whether there might
nonetheless be a First Amendment problem under the 1970s cases barring the use
of government funds for physical places where religious services will be held.
(I realize the issue arises as to “reflection rooms” more broadly as well.)
What do people on the list think about it? Thanks, Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
-- Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053 Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government,
Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014))
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
