ADA Question

[Guest guest]

Hi, Alyce --

If you're thinking that maybe the First Amendment separation of church and

state gives religious organizations an exemption from generally applicable

laws, I believe the answer is no. A Methodist minister once told me about an

occasion when a city building inspector was lambasting him for installing a

wheelchair ramp that was not up to code. It was very clear to the minister

that he had to comply.

But that's just anecdotal. It would be good to hear from a lawyer.

Dan

On 6/18/07, Alyce <alycew@...> wrote:

>

> Are churches required to make ADA accommodations, particularly

> architectural ones?

>

> My pastor thinks that if a church spends X amount or increases the value

> of the property by X percent, architectural accommodations must be made. I

> certainly don't doubt the morality of doing so, but I would like to know

> what the law says.

>

> Thanks!

>

> Alyce

>

>

[Guest guest]

In addition to finding out what the law stipulates re modifications for a church

or other place of worship, check with your denomination's bylaws or guidelines.

You may find that they have additional requirements.

---------------------------------

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.

Answers - Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Public buildings, churches included have to comply with the ADA if they

are built or renovated after 1990. If a building is being renovated to

improve a certain area, if it is structurally sound, they must comply

with the ADA.

If making renovations and trying to make a building up to code with the

ADA, if for some reason making the access up to code prevents the

structure from being safe, they are able to be exempted.

If accessibility isn't 100% up to code, reasonable accommodations

should be made when ever possible.

Being " grandfathered " in only applies if the building has not been

renovated since 1990. Once renovations start, they need to include the

ADA codes within their plans and comply.

~ a

>

> Are churches required to make ADA accommodations, particularly

architectural ones?

>

> My pastor thinks that if a church spends X amount or increases the

value of the property by X percent, architectural accommodations must

be made. I certainly don't doubt the morality of doing so, but I would

like to know what the law says.

>

> Thanks!

>

> Alyce

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There are a few resources available regarding accessibility and the

ADA for public buildings. One resource may be more recognized and

that is the ADA Tech Center. The toll-free numbers for questions

about the ADA is 800-949-4232

Another resource that is often overlooked is in your own backyard.

Every state has an agency available for ADA and access to your cities

and state's public buildings. People may also go to this entity for

assistance and for complaints.

This particular state agency may be called something a little

different. Here in NH it is called the Governor's Commission on

Disability. This is an agency that works with your state's Governor's

and Council, local businesses and the general public on various

accessibility issues and are familiar with various legislative bills

regarding disability issues.

If you are having difficulty identifying what agency is in your state

for the ADA and Disability issues, let me know and I'll assist you

with your search.

~ a

>

> In addition to finding out what the law stipulates re modifications

for a church or other place of worship, check with your

denomination's bylaws or guidelines. You may find that they have

additional requirements.

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from

someone who knows.

> Answers - Check it out.

>

>

[Guest guest]

a, Dan and Alyce;

I have to disagree with a. I believe her analysis is

incorrect. According to how I read the law (I responded to Alyce

privately as well), religious entities are exempt from the ADA

Architectural Guidelines (ADAAG). The text from Title III of the

ADA states:

----

" Religious entity.'' The term " religious entity'' is defined in

accordance with section 307 of the ADA as a religious organization

or entity controlled by a religious organization, including a place

of worship. Section 36.102(e) of the rule states that the rule does

not apply to any religious entity.

The ADA's exemption of religious organizations and religious

entities controlled by religious organizations is very broad,

encompassing a wide variety of situations. Religious organizations

and entities controlled by religious organizations have no

obligations under the ADA. Even when a religious organization

carries out activities that would otherwise make it a public

accommodation, the religious organization is exempt from ADA

coverage. Thus, if a church itself operates a day care center, a

nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan school system, the

operations of the center, home, school, or schools would not be

subject to the requirements of the ADA or this part. The religious

entity would not lose its exemption merely because the services

provided were open to the general public. The test is whether the

church or other religious organization operates the public

accommodation, not which individuals receive the public

accommodation's services.

Religious entities that are controlled by religious organizations

are also exempt from the ADA's requirements. Many religious

organizations in the United States use lay boards and other secular

or corporate mechanisms to operate schools and an array of social

services. The use of a lay board or other mechanism does not itself

remove the ADA's religious exemption. Thus, a parochial school,

having religious doctrine in its curriculum and sponsored by a

religious order, could be exempt either as a religious organization

or as an entity controlled by a religious organization, even if it

has a lay board. The test remains a factual one -- whether the

church or other religious organization controls the operations of

the school or of the service or whether the school or service is

itself a religious organization.

Although a religious organization or a religious entity that is

controlled by a religious organization has no obligations under the

rule, a public accommodation that is not itself a religious

organization, but that operates a place of public accommodation in

leased space on the property of a religious entity, which is not a

place of worship, is subject to the rule's requirements if it is not

under control of a religious organization. When a church rents

meeting space, which is not a place of worship, to a local community

group or to a private, independent day care center, the ADA applies

to the activities of the local community group and day care center

if a lease exists and consideration is paid.

---end quote

Of course, in theory I believe that all places should be accessible

and would hope that you encourage your church to do so. But, I

wanted to clarify that, in fact, a church is not required to

comply. A specific jurisdiction may have it's own building code

which requires accessibility and may not exempt a church, but that

is certainly a question for the local building code official as each

jurisdiction is different.

Just for general information the National Organization on Disability

has a program for accessible, inclusive, religious congregations.

You can find more information about what they are doing to encourage

more churches to be welcoming to all people at:

http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage & pageId=9

Hope this helps!

Tricia Mason

LPA Delegate, ICC/ANSI A117.1

> >

> > Are churches required to make ADA accommodations, particularly

> architectural ones?

> >

> > My pastor thinks that if a church spends X amount or increases

the

> value of the property by X percent, architectural accommodations

must

> be made. I certainly don't doubt the morality of doing so, but I

would

> like to know what the law says.

> >

> > Thanks!

> >

> > Alyce

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

After doing some research, I found that I was incorrect as it was

pointed out below.

Religious entities such as churches and religious schools are

exempted from being ADA compliant.

I'm not sure where my head was, but I guess when I think about public

access and service provided to the public, I must have thought that

religious entities were part of the whole.

Even when someone is around Disability and ADA stuff for years on

end, you still learn something new.

I apologize for providing incorrect and misleading information. That

was no my intent! (maybe it was wishful thinking) I rather have

misinformation about being in compliant, than being told that I don't

have to be in compliant when I would have to.

~ a

> > >

> > > Are churches required to make ADA accommodations, particularly

> > architectural ones?

> > >

> > > My pastor thinks that if a church spends X amount or

increases

> the

> > value of the property by X percent, architectural accommodations

> must

> > be made. I certainly don't doubt the morality of doing so, but I

> would

> > like to know what the law says.

> > >

> > > Thanks!

> > >

> > > Alyce

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Tricia --

Thank you for the clarification. The only point I was trying to make was

that the First Amendment did not in and of itself exempt religious

organizations from the ADA. But if the ADA contains its own exemption, well,

there you go. Sorry for not bothering to check that -- definitely laziness

on my part.

Dan

On 6/19/07, tmason1gar <tloki.lounge@...> wrote:

>

> a, Dan and Alyce;

>

> I have to disagree with a. I believe her analysis is

> incorrect. According to how I read the law (I responded to Alyce

> privately as well), religious entities are exempt from the ADA

> Architectural Guidelines (ADAAG). The text from Title III of the

> ADA states:

>

> ----

> " Religious entity.'' The term " religious entity'' is defined in

> accordance with section 307 of the ADA as a religious organization

> or entity controlled by a religious organization, including a place

> of worship. Section 36.102(e) of the rule states that the rule does

> not apply to any religious entity.

>

> The ADA's exemption of religious organizations and religious

> entities controlled by religious organizations is very broad,

> encompassing a wide variety of situations. Religious organizations

> and entities controlled by religious organizations have no

> obligations under the ADA. Even when a religious organization

> carries out activities that would otherwise make it a public

> accommodation, the religious organization is exempt from ADA

> coverage. Thus, if a church itself operates a day care center, a

> nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan school system, the

> operations of the center, home, school, or schools would not be

> subject to the requirements of the ADA or this part. The religious

> entity would not lose its exemption merely because the services

> provided were open to the general public. The test is whether the

> church or other religious organization operates the public

> accommodation, not which individuals receive the public

> accommodation's services.

>

> Religious entities that are controlled by religious organizations

> are also exempt from the ADA's requirements. Many religious

> organizations in the United States use lay boards and other secular

> or corporate mechanisms to operate schools and an array of social

> services. The use of a lay board or other mechanism does not itself

> remove the ADA's religious exemption. Thus, a parochial school,

> having religious doctrine in its curriculum and sponsored by a

> religious order, could be exempt either as a religious organization

> or as an entity controlled by a religious organization, even if it

> has a lay board. The test remains a factual one -- whether the

> church or other religious organization controls the operations of

> the school or of the service or whether the school or service is

> itself a religious organization.

>

> Although a religious organization or a religious entity that is

> controlled by a religious organization has no obligations under the

> rule, a public accommodation that is not itself a religious

> organization, but that operates a place of public accommodation in

> leased space on the property of a religious entity, which is not a

> place of worship, is subject to the rule's requirements if it is not

> under control of a religious organization. When a church rents

> meeting space, which is not a place of worship, to a local community

> group or to a private, independent day care center, the ADA applies

> to the activities of the local community group and day care center

> if a lease exists and consideration is paid.

> ---end quote

>

> Of course, in theory I believe that all places should be accessible

> and would hope that you encourage your church to do so. But, I

> wanted to clarify that, in fact, a church is not required to

> comply. A specific jurisdiction may have it's own building code

> which requires accessibility and may not exempt a church, but that

> is certainly a question for the local building code official as each

> jurisdiction is different.

>

> Just for general information the National Organization on Disability

> has a program for accessible, inclusive, religious congregations.

> You can find more information about what they are doing to encourage

> more churches to be welcoming to all people at:

> http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage & pageId=9

>

> Hope this helps!

>

> Tricia Mason

> LPA Delegate, ICC/ANSI A117.1

>

>

> > >

> > > Are churches required to make ADA accommodations, particularly

> > architectural ones?

> > >

> > > My pastor thinks that if a church spends X amount or increases

> the

> > value of the property by X percent, architectural accommodations

> must

> > be made. I certainly don't doubt the morality of doing so, but I

> would

> > like to know what the law says.

> > >

> > > Thanks!

> > >

> > > Alyce

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Tricia is correct. The ADA does not apply to religious

organizations. However, the ADA does allow States to set higher

standards than federal law. Therefore, it is important to check

State law to see if access in churches is required in your State.

Van Etten, LLB, JD

P.S. Because I am an inactive attorney in Ohio and New York, please

know that this post is offered for educational purposes only and

should not be taken as legal advice.

> > >

> > > Are churches required to make ADA accommodations, particularly

> > architectural ones?

> > >

> > > My pastor thinks that if a church spends X amount or

increases

> the

> > value of the property by X percent, architectural accommodations

> must

> > be made. I certainly don't doubt the morality of doing so, but

I

> would

> > like to know what the law says.

> > >

> > > Thanks!

> > >

> > > Alyce

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. But I do know this: if the

ADA applies to this club at all, then cannot be denied entry

because of her scooter (and allowing her in if she leaves the scooter at

the door doesn't count).

So does the ADA apply? If the club is open to the public, then it does,

just like any restaurant or bar. If it's a private membership club,

then I'm not really sure - there are others here who could probably

answer that for you, but it might be a little more complicated; I'm

really not sure.

That said, I think the easiest route here is not the legal route. If it

were me, I'd show up on my scooter and head on in as if nothing was out

of the ordinary. If challenged, I'd insist on speaking to a manager. I

would bring up the legal and moral obligations of the club to allow

entrance to wheelchair users (and maybe inquire along the way as to

their reasons - are they concerned about fire safety? Is it an

appearances thing? Neither is an excuse, but knowing exactly where the

hangup is could be helpful.) Threatening to contact local media might

shake things up a bit, and actually contacting local media could be very

effective.

> A related topic: There is a show on ShowTime I usually like. It’s called

> “Bullshit” written and produced by “Penn and Teller.” I really enjoy

> their take on just about everything I’ve seen but I do have a problem

> with episode 56 regarding the ADA.

I haven't seen much of this show beyond the ADA episode, but argh. Penn

and Teller are smarter than the crap they're pushing - they have to be!

From the number of things they say that are flat-out wrong (or even

just the number of economic principles they ignore), I've come to the

conclusion that the show isn't an independent investigation as it

purports to be, but rather an attempt to gather all the evidence that

supports a preconceived notion. It seems a bit out there even for a

Cato Institute project (Penn is a consultant for the Cato Institute,

though he conveniently forgets to mention that when he talks about them

on the show). I wrote a nice long rant about this episode when I first

saw it, but let's just say I think their views are incredibly

indefensible, but unfortunately fairly widely held nonetheless.

Ian

[Guest guest]

Actually they are correct. Because of safety, a club my deny entrance

for any reason. If taken to court they would win any case based off

that argument. Plus having a wheel chair or scooter in a tightly packed

establishment like that can actually get them shut down by the fire

marshal because it creates a fire hazard. I know in the clubs i have

worked at we would never allow a scooter in. And if a wheel chair was

allowed it was searched throughly i dont think i ever saw a wheel chair

in the building that didnt belong to either family or friends of

someone that worked there and let them in. But just joe smo' on the

street...Naaa. Most clubs i know wont let them in though and its not to

be mean to the person but because it creates a serious safety issue.

I apologise i meant to send this to the group at first.

[Guest guest]

So, ADA legal issues aside, the message being sent by 'clubs' is that

they can discriminate based on someone having a physical need for a

mobility unit?

Joe smo' on the street is in need of a wheelchair to maintain quality

of life, interesting that someone has made the judgment that there is

no need for 'fun' in his lives.

I've no doubt that if Ms. Hilton had a need that we'd see her allowed

in even if it was on a stretcher with 2 oxygen tanks.

I suspect that the multiple blindly drunk individuals who can't put

one foot in front of the other to walk a relatively save path to

safety is more of an issue than a mobility unit.

>

> Actually they are correct. Because of safety, a club my deny

entrance for any reason. If taken to court they would win any case

based off that argument. Plus having a wheel chair or scooter in a

tightly packed establishment like that can actually get them shut down

by the fire marshal because it creates a fire hazard. I know in the

clubs i have worked at we would never allow a scooter in. And if a

wheel chair was allowed it was searched throughly i dont think i ever

saw a wheel chair in the building that didnt belong to either family

or friends of someone that worked there and let them in. But just joe

smo' on the street...Naaa. Most clubs i know wont let them in though

and its not to be mean to the person but because it creates a serious

safety issue.

>

> I apologise i meant to send this to the group at first.

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Marty!

I believe I know of the club you are speaking. I went to Vegas for my

30th birthday and I, too, was not able to take my scooter in. It

seems as though the only way to COMFORTABLY enjoy those clubs is if

you can shell out $100's of dollars for a table. I don't know if

there's anything that can be done though. Just thought I'd let you

know that T-lee isn't the only one that has experienced this.

Angie

>

> Hi All,

>

> I know there is a resident ADA guru here somewhere, but I don't recall

> who that person is. My wife, lee, needs to speak with the

person in

> question.

>

> went to a local club a month or so back (since we live in Vegas

> and the local club is posh it is consequently world famous) and she was

> refused entrance if she insisted on using her scooter. She was with

> friends and didn't want to ruin their evening so she dismounted and

> undertook a very long uncomfortable walk into the establishment. Later

> that evening she was run over and knocked over by one of their rather

> burly security guards. His excuse, " It's a bar! " After talking with the

> manager that night she thought the problem was corrected.

>

> A couple nights ago T-lee went back the to same night spot, at the

> insistence of some other friends who were unaware of the original

> incident. She was once again denied the use of her scooter. Even though

> the party was on the VIP list they were escorted to an offshoot of the

> main club and comfortable accommodations were not provided for T-Lee

and

> her friends.

>

> Here's the thing; physical access is provided but policy denies her

> comfortable access. In fact it sounds as if they're saying, " You may

> come in but we won't make access easy or equal and we need to keep you

> out of sight of our regular customers if you're different. "

>

> At any rate, T-Lee's pissed and out for blood this time and I don't

> blame her one bit.

>

> A related topic: There is a show on ShowTime I usually like. It's

called

> " Bullshit " written and produced by " Penn and Teller. " I really enjoy

> their take on just about everything I've seen but I do have a problem

> with episode 56 regarding the ADA. For those of you with OnDemand

> service check it out and see what you think.

>

> Thanks,

> Marty

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not one either, a lawyer, but I did come across the article

below, and apparently if the business predates the ADA, or when it

came into effect, then they, the establishment, can deny some

entrance, if they so choose. But, I'm not sure even on that, so don't

quote me. Still, I do 'feel' it's wrong and stupid, and this too, as

if a fire marshall would to come into any 'overcrowded' niteclub and

were to see one in a wheelchair they would shut the place down solely

based on the wheelchair user being there. The fire marshall would

have to do a lot of 'fancy dancing' just to 'save' their 'face', as

they would know they'd be publicly embarrassed and challenged

publicly (in court) by so many disabled groups it wouldn't be funny.

So, if anything, they would violate the night club, I feel, on

the 'overcrowding' issue, or the number of people in it, but not

who's in it, and this prolly as well, if anything or anyone,

wheelchaired or standing, was 'obstructing' an exit. But, even then,

to save face again, as they would know better, the fire marshall

would simply ask the establishment to ask the wheelchair user or the

one standing and blocking the exit, for that matter, to move to a

better location for the 'sake' of his or her safety and the safety of

others as well, and not this, " Get the wheelchair dude out or face a

summons for violating fire code number such and such! "

Then again, there are dumb people everywhere, even in the law of code

enforcement, so that could happen too... but once found out they'd be

either fired or reprimanded publicly.

Article:

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/departments/news/000736.html

is the wheelchair user of above and I believe he is

the same of this org as well: http://disabledriders.org/

I found this too: Now, it's not on night clubs, rather health clubs,

but I'm assuming the same issues/answers would apply? Then again,

even tho it's helpful, it may not answer this, does it apply to

establishments that pre-date the ADA?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HED/is_5_19/ai_102157660

Lastly, my opinion only, even if the establishment can, say, not

admit entrance to a wheelchair user, because it predates the ADA, I

feel it was prolly more this, their denail of entrance to that

person, they were jsut >>>too<<< lazy to 'assist' the wheelchair user

to properly come into the place, and out of their stupidity and lack

thereof of truly knowing and understanding the law, and

their 'paranoia' of seeing the fire marshall as some ogre just

waiting on the side to close them down immediately upon their seeing

one of us in the joint, I'd sue them just over their stupidity alone!

my two pence, grady

> I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. But I do know this:

if the ADA applies to this club at all, then cannot be denied

entry because of her scooter (and allowing her in if she leaves the

scooter at the door doesn't count).

> So does the ADA apply? If the club is open to the public, then it

does, just like any restaurant or bar....

> Ian

[Guest guest]

I see yer point, but I disagree... strongly, so don't get upset!

A height requirement for an amusement ride and one that is required

in the Armed Services is different than being barred from an

establishment that serves 'beer and nuts'. haha

Even then, an amusement ride must, I believe, post a sign as to how

tall the 'rider', not 'sitter' in some bar, must be in order to 'get'

onto the ride, so then that would mean the local un-accessible 'beer

garden', I luv that word, haha, then would have to post a sign too.

If not, why not? And something along these lines, " ONLY people who

can freely walk in here, unassisted and without the help of another

person (say one leading a blind person, for example), an instrument

(a cane), and/or by mechanical or electrical means (a manual

wheelchair or an electric scooter) can come into here and be served. "

You now what that smacks of? Pre-civil right era, the same thing, if

such a sign were to be hung out for us.

Note too: They're serving me (a drink that I paid for too, mind you),

I'm not serving them, as I would with Uncle Sam's Army (that is, Sam

is paying me to serve him with either cash pay and/or a free college

education, hence the incentive to enlist).

And more on the Arm Services thingy, I might be barred from that,

true, but that's more from my capablities to physically defend

myself, others, haul heavy equipment, run fast and out of the way

too! haha But not because of my wanting pop a long necked Mountain

Dew, lol, sorry, I don't drink folks, into my mouth as some local

nite club that is neither asking me to ride a roller coaster nor

shoot an M-16. I simply just want 'the freedom' to come into there

and sit with my free standing friends too:). If they can come in,

then why not me?

my three pence now:P, grady

>Its kinda like not being tall enough to ride a roller coaster

(something that at times i have to deal with), or not being tall

enough to serve in the armed forces. There are rules that are

necessary for your safety that limit what you do. People may be dicks

about enforcing it, but it is for your benefit.

> Ian

[Guest guest]

Now, this is only my opinion as I'm not a lawyer, fire marshall or an

insurance agent:P.

Maybe they're doing it to us, because to them it's too much a hassle,

in their mind, that is, to move one of us, so they don't and say

they're exempt (or whatever, from the ADA), or by some order of the

fire marshall.That they told us not to have wheelchairs in our

establishment, which I tend to doubt. So, I think the bottom line is

their uncooperation to handle us physically, as some of these

structures might be old and cumbersome, and prolly this more than

anything... the bottom line... to them, as it always come back to

that. In other words, out of fear of mishandling you, to get 'into'

their establishment, they feared being 'sued' by you. And even if

they do 'get' you in there, safely and soundly, if some (able bodied)

idiot has a little too much to drink and even accidentally 'hurts'

you from 'his' actions of which you may be just a innocent bystander

too, the establishment prolly feels you'll sue them there too. Thus,

to avoid all that, and I'm not saying it's right as it's still wrong,

they give you some run around excuse that kinda sounds half way

plausiable but really isn't, rather than saying it's you and we're

afraid of you suing them.

Because, my friends, if any establishment says to you, the fire

marshall says we can't have wheelchairs in here as it's against code

such and such, or even if they don't mention such a code, say this

back, Oh yeah, " What's the fire marshall's name as I plan to write

him. " Then write him (or her), copied it, send it via certified mail

so that only they can sign for it, and trust me, no fire marshall

would ever commit himself (or herself) to that... even if they did

say that to the establishment, as they would be hanging themselves by

their own words... and possibly losing their job. What you'll prolly

get back is this, " I never said that, so and so (you). What I said is

that club was not to have anymore than this amount of people at any

one time, and that all exits were to be free of any obstructions. "

Now, if they, for some jerky reason they admit to saying that

wheelchaired people were not allowed in, by some order of theirs,

then sue them! haha Cuz you just got them to hang themselves by their

own words, which I doubt they'll do. However, in any case, the next

time you go back to club and they say the same again, show them the

letter! haha And if they still bar you, then sue them! Actually, I'd

prolly not even give them a second chance, I'd sue them for lying to

me in the first place with proof of the fire marshall's letter to me

once I saw them in court! lol

Now, all these are just thoughts, and perhaps ones that are way out

there too, but I tried as best to take it as far as I could for all

of us:), grady.

[Guest guest]

I just took my 4 year old to a local preschool today for the first time. It is

held at a church and the building is old where the school is actually held. His

class is on the 2nd floor, which is only accessible via the stairs. This is

difficult and dangerous for me, especially when I am carrying my 16 mo. There is

no elevator.

I asked a friend who attends this church and she said that she had to turn away

someone in a wheelchair who was there one Sunday and wanted to attend Sunday

school which happened to be held in the same building. She said that she felt

terrible.

Is this church in compliance? Do they have any special exemptions? I am just

curious.

Thanks,

Amy

[Guest guest]

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CHILD CARE CENTERS AND THE AMERICANS

WITH DISABILITIES ACT

From http://www.ada.gov/childq%26a.htm

Which child care centers are covered by title III?

A: Almost all child care providers, regardless of size or number of

employees, must comply with title III of the ADA. Even small, home-

based centers that may not have to follow some State laws are covered

by title III.

The exception is child care centers that are actually run by

religious entities such as churches, mosques, or synagogues.

Activities controlled by religious organizations are not covered by

title III.

Private child care centers that are operating on the premises of a

religious organization, however, are generally not exempt from title

III. Where such areas are leased by a child care program not

controlled or operated by the religious organization, title III

applies to the child care program but not the religious organization.

For example, if a private child care program is operated out of a

church, pays rent to the church, and has no other connection to the

church, the program has to comply with title III but the church does

not.