If the church were to refuse to limit its physical plant budget, then I could see the court stepping in and looking at attendance, history, value, contributions (income), and so on.
I think the idea that the court could force the church to change into a for-profit institution is preposterous hyperbole. That it might force the church to trim its charitable actions seems likely and entirely within the proper authority of the court under these circumstances.
Let us not forget that it was the church's actions that brought about the problems for which it is finally being held accountable. It should pay for its malfeasance.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
"For all men of good will May 17, 1954, came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of enforced segregation. . . . It served to transform the fatigue of despair into the buoyancy of hope."
Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1960 on Brown v. Board of Education
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw