Somebody else has also told me that it was in the news at the time. I try to stay aware of these cases in the news, and I hadn't heard anything, unlike Employment Division Vs. Smith, Boerne Vs. Flores, and cases like that. That being the case, if you tell me it was in the news, I'll take your word for it.
At any rate, I didn't think it was a "liberal press cover up" as much as it was a "liberal press really doesn't care". Kind of like Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, which didn't get anywhere near the coverage it would've if the plaintiff had been a member of a group the liberal press does care about. (And this one I've looked for.)
Brad
Marci wrote on 08/16/2005 04:13:32 PM:
> When it was decided, which is a while ago, the Cottonwood case was
> reported on everywhere. There was no "liberal press cover up."
>
> Marci
>
> In a message dated 8/16/2005 11:26:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Interesting article. This kind of thing is exactly what I was
> concerned about after Kelo was handed down. I'm glad to see that
> RLIUPA is protecting the churches, but that fact that it's necessary
> says something about the idea that local governments could generally
> be trusted to do the right thing.
>
> I also find it interesting that I'd never heard anything in the news
> about the Cottonwood/Costco/Cypress story. I can only wonder, if
> they had tried to sieze land belonging to Planned Parenthood instead
> of a church, would the media silence have been the same?
>
> Brad
_______________________________________________ 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.
