"Fings ain't wot they used ter be" is not Gilbert and Sullivan, but (I think) Lionel Bart.

In the UK discrimination is analysed by considering direct discrimination (eg "no women") and indirect discrimination (eg "Applicants must be able to bench-press 200 pounds"). Proportionately fewer women than men can satisfy the above test.

"No uses other than a single family home" is not discriminatory in either sense.

Even indirect discrimination may be justified, and therefore not unlawful, if it is objectively necessary, and proportionate. So reasonable strength tests for firemen, who may need to carry victims down ladders, are unlikely to be illegal.

What is at issue here is the extent to which religious belief may justify an exemption from otherwise universal rules. Rastafarianism is not regarded by all legal systems as a religion (it is not accepted as one for the purposes of the UK Race Relations Act, for example) but for present purposes assume it was so regarded. Further assume that it required the smoking of cannabis while driving. In Rastafarianism the smoking of cannabis has some symbolic importance. Would that justify Rastafarians being exempt from the rules of law relating to driving under the influence of drugs? It is submitted not - there being two reasons. On the one hand one may consider the importance of the objective being served by the rules - in the abstract. On the other hand one looks at the reasonableness of the requirement for a relaxation in the rules.

In this specific case, the rule may bear harshly, but you cannot have different zoning laws for one block, and you cannot reasonably say that one religion should be given more accommodation than others.

On this analysis I would say that the principle overall of zoning laws is important, and a general relaxation of zoning laws for blocks with only one building of (x) type could be a can of worms. On the other hand there clearly ought to be a mechanism (as there is in UK planning law) for making a retrospective application - to be determined on general principles.

On the other side we come back to the social justification and protection for religious rules. Clearly there will be some cases in which the bests interests of society will be served by adjudging not that society's rules must bend, but that those of the religious group must bend, if there is conflict.

Since I see no rational purpose in the relevant religious laws here (a view that I share of may religious rules of many religions, although I am vaguely theist) I do not see ground for saying that the religious rules must found an exemption from the social rules.

The outcome of the litigation will however be determined by the application of the RLUIPA Act - with which it would be interesting if not profitable for me to familiarise myself. Does it proceed a bit like the UK's DIsability Discrimination Act, namely that the Disabled are entitled to reasonable alterations to premises, working practices, etc? If so it is going to come back to what is "reasonable" in a particular case, so the Act may well require a relaxation of the zoning ordinance, not on the basis of discrimination but on the basis that in this particular case (the one-house block) the relaxation would be "reasonable".