Legal question: wedding reception considered freedom of religion?

[FreedomQuest]

Hi Everyone,

I couldn’t determine which forum category this question would best fit.

Our township enacted a mass gathering ordinance. This ordinance would prevent someone from having wedding receptions on their property.

Under the bill of rights, the first amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

From a legal standpoint, does anyone know if a wedding reception would be considered the “free exercise of religion?” I would consider the reception as a continuation of a religious ceremony – especially when prayers are said.

Is anyone here an attorney or knows for a fact how the reception would be deemed from a legal standpoint?

 

[Joannm]

A wedding reception is simply the part following the ceremony. It has no religious connotations. It is not a necessary part of the Rite of Marriage. If they were to forbid gathering in the Church for a wedding then you might have a stand.

 

[Spencerian]

Hi Everyone,

I couldn’t determine which forum category this question would best fit.

Our township enacted a mass gathering ordinance. This ordinance would prevent someone from having wedding receptions on their property.

Under the bill of rights, the first amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

From a legal standpoint, does anyone know if a wedding reception would be considered the “free exercise of religion?” I would consider the reception as a continuation of a religious ceremony – especially when prayers are said.

Is anyone here an attorney or knows for a fact how the reception would be deemed from a legal standpoint?

Hi.

I would agree with the first post here. The township’s ordinance is almost certainly to quell private residences from late-night parties that disturb the peace. I’m not an attorney but I am a resident of a home and would not take kindly on anything too loud. I would guess that such an ordinance is an extension of an anti-noise ordinance, which are common.

As such, the reception isn’t part of a Nuptial Mass in itself, so religious grounds don’t apply.

There are places for receptions. It needn’t be expensive, but it should be enclosed and away from residences to minimize disturbing neighbors.

 

[CDNowak]

Hi Everyone,

I couldn’t determine which forum category this question would best fit.

Our township enacted a mass gathering ordinance. This ordinance would prevent someone from having wedding receptions on their property.

Under the bill of rights, the first amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the** right to peaceably assemble** or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

From a legal standpoint, does anyone know if a wedding reception would be considered the “free exercise of religion?” I would consider the reception as a continuation of a religious ceremony – especially when prayers are said.

Is anyone here an attorney or knows for a fact how the reception would be deemed from a legal standpoint?

As noted a wedding reception would not fall under exercise of religion, but I would wonder about freedom of assembly. (However I think a challenge would probably not be successful, depending on how the ordinance is worded).

 

[FreedomQuest]

The way the ordinance is written it would be a violation for a church congregation to have a service within the township if it exceeded the number of people and time provision as specified in the ordinance. There is no provision in the ordinance for people to meet and practice religion.

I too believe the ordinance violates the right to assemble. The right to assemble doesn’t extend to social events so it depends on how the reception would be viewed.

A friend is being ordained and we plan to have the ceremonies as well as the reception. But not all receptions would have the ceremony on our property. Those without the ceremony would likely still have to fall under the freedom of religion and so it may only mean we have to say a prayer or something… That’s what I’m researching and trying to find the answer to.

 

[Cristiano]

A wedding reception is simply the part following the ceremony. It has no religious connotations. It is not a necessary part of the Rite of Marriage. If they were to forbid gathering in the Church for a wedding then you might have a stand.

I disagree on this. Religion is not limited to liturgical events. A wedding reception is and should be an extension of the rite of marriage celebrated in the Church.It should not be an opportunity to get drunk and rowdy.

 

[PatriceA]

The way the ordinance is written it would be a violation for a church congregation to have a service within the township if it exceeded the number of people and time provision as specified in the ordinance. There is no provision in the ordinance for people to meet and practice religion.

I too believe the ordinance violates the right to assemble. The right to assemble doesn’t extend to social events so it depends on how the reception would be viewed.

A friend is being ordained and we plan to have the ceremonies as well as the reception. But not all receptions would have the ceremony on our property. Those without the ceremony would likely still have to fall under the freedom of religion and so it may only mean we have to say a prayer or something… That’s what I’m researching and trying to find the answer to.

I would think a social event would be included in the ordinance if it exceeded a certain number of people and the time provision. I know in our borough, groups must apply for a permit regardless of the intent behind the assembly if they are using borough property for any occasion.

 

[curlycool89]

I disagree on this. Religion is not limited to liturgical events. A wedding reception is and should be an extension of the rite of marriage celebrated in the Church.It should not be an opportunity to get drunk and rowdy.

I think the important question is whether it is religiously necessary. The Church does not require that any reception/supper/dance/whatever occur after a marriage for validity or licitness. I would say that what happens after a wedding is largely a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

Unless of course the reception included something religious like a praise and worship gathering or adoration or something.

 

[1ke]

It doesn’t matter what anyone on CAF thinks.

You need to obtain the counsel of a lawyer in your local area who is familiar with your state and local laws, who can read the actual statute, go to a town council meeting and ask questions, etc. They can advise you of your options and whether or not you have a case.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi Everyone,

I
Our township enacted a mass gathering ordinance. This ordinance would prevent someone from having wedding receptions on their property.

Is anyone here an attorney or knows for a fact how the reception would be deemed from a legal standpoint?

a wedding reception is a party on private property
I think a more effective legal challenge would be to the constitutional right to gather on private property
this has not much to do with relgion unless the law targets only one relgious group, or is enforced only against religious gatherings, not other events.

 

[TheDoctor]

The way the ordinance is written it would be a violation for a church congregation to have a service within the township if it exceeded the number of people and time provision as specified in the ordinance. There is no provision in the ordinance for people to meet and practice religion.

Based on what I know of these types of laws, there is probably no issue with a service within a permitted space, like an auditorium or the high school gym or a church. It is a mass gathering of people in private homes that the ordinance seeks to restrict.

I too believe the ordinance violates the right to assemble. The right to assemble doesn’t extend to social events so it depends on how the reception would be viewed.

No, I don’t think it does. The right to assemble, like the right to bear arms or free speech, is right which can be restricted for the common good (which is why I may need a permit to have a demonstration or why I am not permitted to protest at certain times in certain areas).

A friend is being ordained and we plan to have the ceremonies as well as the reception. But not all receptions would have the ceremony on our property.

So, is your “friend” going to be a Catholic priest or getting an internet style “ordination”. This makes it sound like you and your “friend” want to go into the wedding business and are looking for a loophole to use your property.

Those without the ceremony would likely still have to fall under the freedom of religion and so it may only mean we have to say a prayer or something… That’s what I’m researching and trying to find the answer to.

You will lose this and rightfully so. The “wedding” does not require the attendence of anyone except the bride, groom, witness and official (depending on the secular law in your county). As such, since all the other folks at the reception are not requried to be there for the “church” part, even if you do throw in a prayer you are going to lose. The only purpose of the other folks there is social (to be at the reception) and not religiious (required as part of the ceremony).

BTW - just a full disclosure item, are you really Catholic? The reason I ask is that Catholics don’t go around trying to get weddings taken out of Church. Nothing inflammatory, just askin’.

 

[Pregustator]

From a legal standpoint, does anyone know if a wedding reception would be considered the “free exercise of religion?” I would consider the reception as a continuation of a religious ceremony – especially when prayers are said.

Even if the reception were considered, somehow, to be an extension of a religious nuptials ceremony, what of a couple married before a wedding commissioner or a justice of the peace in a non-religious ceremony?

Would you have to be married by a clergyman in order to have a reception? How about a couple who gets married on the beach by a wedding commissioner, but hires a vocalist to sing the “Ave Maria”? Do they get a reception?

 

[Cristiano]

I think the important question is whether it is religiously necessary. The Church does not require that any reception/supper/dance/whatever occur after a marriage for validity or licitness. I would say that what happens after a wedding is largely a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

Unless of course the reception included something religious like a praise and worship gathering or adoration or something.

What is your definition of religiously necessary? From my point of view that implies that we do not need a Mass, or people present except for the bride, groom, officiant, and two witnesses. When we get in the argument of religiously necessary (from the secular point of view) we are asking the government to regulate religious functions.When we get in the argument of religiously necessary (from the Catholic point of view) we are saying that we are of this world and not in this world. You are correct when you say that it is a cultural thing but you are wrong when you say that it is not a religious thing because our culture is (or ought to be) based on our religion.

I can understand some form of regulation to provide for the safety of the participants; however, I am always suspicious of ordinances that limit gatherings. If noise is the problem, they can easily make an ordinance about specific noise levels etc.

The problem is that this is mainly about dimwits politicians that try to appease a constituency with feel good laws that can be invoked in an arbitrary manner to give flexibility of power to the local governments.

 

[Cristiano]

The way the ordinance is written it would be a violation for a church congregation to have a service within the township if it exceeded the number of people and time provision as specified in the ordinance. There is no provision in the ordinance for people to meet and practice religion.

I too believe the ordinance violates the right to assemble. The right to assemble doesn’t extend to social events so it depends on how the reception would be viewed.

A friend is being ordained and we plan to have the ceremonies as well as the reception. But not all receptions would have the ceremony on our property. Those without the ceremony would likely still have to fall under the freedom of religion and so it may only mean we have to say a prayer or something… That’s what I’m researching and trying to find the answer to.

Now I am going to address the other side of the coin. Are planning to do this as a business? If yes then it is not a religious function anymore and it can be regulated by business protocols because it is a for profit event.

 

[Miserys_Fence]

I would consider the reception as a continuation of a religious ceremony – especially when prayers are said.

Adding prayers to a reception doesn’t make it a religious event…I pray at home all the time, but I don’t think anyone would consider my house a “church.”

And if a reception were to be considered a religious event–you ought to be having it at the church.

I think you’d have more luck with the freedom of assembly angle.

Miz

 

[FreedomQuest]

Adding prayers to a reception doesn’t make it a religious event…I pray at home all the time, but I don’t think anyone would consider my house a “church.”

And if a reception were to be considered a religious event–you ought to be having it at the church.

I think you’d have more luck with the freedom of assembly angle.

Miz

Miz,

The ordinance undoubtedly violates the fist amendment right to assemble.

The freedom of assembly right is not unlimited. The government may limit the freedom if the instance under consideration satisfies three conditions.

One of the criteria is that the limitation must be content neutral. This means it must not control assemblies based on the kinds of people who gather, their reason for gathering, or their beliefs. A law preventing people from gathering to support flag burning, for example, would violate the freedom of assembly.

The ordinance permits gathering for a family reunion but not, for example, a book reading or in this case a wedding reception.

The bottom line is the ordinance needs to be rewritten.

 

[CDNowak]

I too believe the ordinance violates the right to assemble. The right to assemble doesn’t extend to social events so it depends on how the reception would be viewed.

A friend is being ordained and we plan to have the ceremonies as well as the reception. But not all receptions would have the ceremony on our property. Those without the ceremony would likely still have to fall under the freedom of religion and so it may only mean we have to say a prayer or something… That’s what I’m researching and trying to find the answer to.

It seems you are planning a wedding chapel/banquet hall? Then this statute is the least of your problems: fire, health, and zoning commissions would dictate more stringently any such business. I doubt it would be considered social if it is business property, nor would assembly necessarily be violated.

It doesn’t matter what anyone on CAF thinks.

You need to obtain the counsel of a lawyer in your local area who is familiar with your state and local laws, who can read the actual statute, go to a town council meeting and ask questions, etc. They can advise you of your options and whether or not you have a case.