In Redemption Cmty. Church v. City of Laurel, Md., No. PJM 18-411, 2018 WL 3756739 (D. Md. Aug. 8, 2018), the court denied the city's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for violation of both RFRA (equal terms, nondiscrimination and substantial burden) and the First Amendment (free exercise, free speech, peaceable assembly and Establishment Clause) in relation to its purchase of a property in the city for the purpose of operating a coffee shop during the week and a house of worship on Sunday mornings. After initially receiving a parking waiver for both the coffee shop and church services, the city revoked it on the grounds that church representatives purportedly submitted evidence at the hearing that contradicted representations it had made in the waiver application. Three days after church trustees visited the property with the city fire marshal, the City Council proposed an amendment to the City Code that would exclude nonprofit businesses from operating in the same zone. Then, the City Council proposed and adopted an amendment to the City Code's "Table of Commercial Uses," changing "house[s] of worship" that are "located on a lot less than 1 acre in size" from a "permitted" use to a "permitted [use], subject to the approval of a special exception." In contrast, the amendment stated that the following institutions "would be deemed permitted without a special exception: "art and cultural centers, cinemas and 'legitimate theater[s]'; open microphone venues; 'Disc Jockeys'; karaoke; poetry or dramatic readings; theatres or halls for the performing arts, symphony, or community theatre; health clubs or spas; libraries, museums and similar 'noncommercial institutions'; 'standard' restaurants; and schools for 'business, art, music, and similar uses.'" The plaintiff submitted a second application for a parking waiver and received it for a for-profit coffee shop, but never applied for a parking waiver or permit to operate as a house of worship. The city argued that the court should dismiss the complaint for lack of ripeness because the church never applied for, and was never denied, a special exception, but the court found that the plaintiff was not required to go through the application process because it adequately alleged that the special exemption process unfairly targets houses of worship, the enactment of the amendment was related to use of the property for worship purposes and certain comments of city officials suggested discriminatory intent.