Court Opinion

ID: 9643774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:40:24.447682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:03.642417
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In their motion for rehearing, appellants ably and earnestly argue that their bookstore and publishing house meets every criterion of the statute and is therefore entitled to the exemption. Nevertheless, upon careful reconsideration, we are convinced that our original disposition was correct.
While the ABA facility might fit the literal language of Article 7150(l)(a) (Supp.1979), we must presume that in enacting that statute the legislature intended to act within its constitutional authority, and to do so it could only have intended to exempt those facilities which function as places of worship by disseminating information on a religious faith, not those which merely disseminate religious information; otherwise, the statute would be unconstitutional. We are required to construe a statute in a manner which renders it constitutional if it is possible to do so consistent with a reasonable interpretation of its language, considering the old law, the evil sought to be remedied, and the remedy. We so construe the statute here by concluding that the intent of the legislature was not to extend the exemption to property other than places of worship, but to recognize that certain facilities for the spread of religious information can actually constitute places of religious worship because of the unique nature of the activities they perform. That it was not the public policy to extend the exemption to facilities which only prepare and distribute religious information or materials is confirmed, we think, by the language of the recently enacted Property Tax Code which, effective January 1, 1980, repeals Article 7150 in its entirety. The new Code provides that real property of a religious organization will be exempt only if it is used primarily as a place of regular religious worship, and is reasonably necessary for engaging in religious worship. It then defines religious worship only as “individual or group ceremony or meditation, education, and fellowship, the purpose of which is to manifest or develop reverence, homage, and commitment in behalf of a religious faith.” Again recognizing that the ABA facility is devoted to religious work or the fulfilling of religious purposes, we conclude that it is not an actual place of religious worship as contemplated either by the constitution or by the statute.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
HUTCHINSON, J., not participating.