Bethpage Town Sued Over Mosque Denial, Alleging Six Years of Discrimination and ‘Unimaginable Bigotry’

A Muslim community group in Bethpage, Long Island, has initiated federal legal action, alleging that the Town subjected them to years of discriminatory treatment and ultimately denied their plans to upgrade their house of worship based on religious animus. The lawsuit, identified as Case 2:25-cv-00428, was formally filed on January 24, 2025, in a United States District Court.

Allegations of Bigotry and Obstruction

According to the complaint filed by the Muslim community group known as MOLI, the Town of Oyster Bay (of which Bethpage is a hamlet) has, for over six years, subjected their efforts to an “unprecedented level of scrutiny and resistance.” The lawsuit asserts that the Town imposed “arbitrary and onerous demands” on MOLI, specifically targeting their attempts to transform their existing facility into a modern and compliant house of worship. The core allegation underpinning the suit is that this prolonged obstruction and ultimate denial stem from “unimaginable bigotry,” fueled by the assertion that the Town “could not tolerate the idea of a new mosque” within the community.

The plaintiffs contend that their efforts were not merely navigating standard zoning and planning procedures but were deliberately hindered through excessive requirements and delays. They argue that the regulatory process was weaponized against them due to their religious identity, preventing them from having a place of worship that adequately serves their needs and complies with modern building standards.

Public Objections Cited

The lawsuit links the Town’s alleged actions, in part, to public opposition that surfaced during the planning process. The complaint specifically references objections voiced by individuals, including Ms. Walker, Craig and Danielle Travers, and Lisa, during public hearings.

These public comments, as described in the lawsuit, raised concerns that the mosque project would result in “changing the ‘culture of Bethpage.'” Other objections cited included allegations that the Muslim community promoted values where men were “more valued than women.” The proposed structure itself was reportedly described pejoratively as “monstrous” by one individual referenced in the filing. The lawsuit suggests that these expressions of public sentiment, which it characterizes as rooted in bias, contributed to the official resistance and eventual denial of MOLI’s application by the Town’s planning authorities.

Legal Basis: Religious Freedom and Civil Rights

MOLI’s lawsuit is brought under significant federal statutes designed to protect religious freedom and civil rights. One key claim is filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, also known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). RLUIPA was enacted to address governmental land use regulations that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches and other religious institutions. It prohibits government entities from applying land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The lawsuit alleges the Town’s actions constitute such a substantial burden without justification.

Additionally, the complaint includes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute is a fundamental part of federal civil rights law, providing a mechanism for individuals to sue state and local government officials or entities for violating their constitutionally protected rights. In this context, MOLI is alleging a violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution, likely including the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion and potentially the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

To further underscore the principles at stake, the lawsuit reportedly references a quote from former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who spoke about the importance of welcoming places of worship under the framework of the American Constitution. This inclusion aims to highlight the fundamental constitutional rights that MOLI alleges have been infringed upon by the Town’s actions.

Planning Process and Denial

The lawsuit outlines the procedural path of MOLI’s application through local planning bodies. According to the filing, the process involved review by the Nassau County Planning Commission (NCPC), which voted on the matter prior to a crucial hearing before the Town Planning Board (PAB).

The lawsuit details that at the PAB hearing, public objections, including those referenced in the complaint, were heard and considered. Following this hearing, the Town Planning Board reportedly opted to delay making a decision on MOLI’s application for a considerable period – four months. After this extended delay, the PAB ultimately voted to deny the application. The lawsuit portrays this sequence of events – the hearing where public objections were voiced, the lengthy delay, and the final denial – as intrinsically linked to the alleged discriminatory motive, suggesting the process was used to block the mosque project under pressure or due to bias.

Seeking Redress

Through the lawsuit, MOLI is seeking legal redress for the alleged “unimaginable bigotry” and the denial of their right to establish a suitable house of worship. The specific remedies sought were not detailed in the provided summary, but such lawsuits typically seek court orders compelling the municipality to approve the project or monetary damages for the harm suffered. The case is expected to delve into the Town’s motivations and the validity of the reasons given for denying MOLI’s application, weighing them against the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to religious institutions regarding land use. The Bethpage case underscores ongoing national debates surrounding religious freedom, community zoning, and the challenge of navigating religious accommodation within local regulatory frameworks.