|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The heart of the town of Brighton is the intersection known as Twelve Corners, and in the middle of Twelve Corners is a little park, a triangular island of greenery with benches and a gazebo, surrounded by traffic.
Small as it is, Twelve Corners Memorial Park has become a town focal point, the site of public ceremonies, political rallies, and holiday displays. These include a large Menorah, a Jewish candelabrum traditionally used during Hanukkah, and a banner with crescent moon and the words “Ramadan Mubarak” (Blessed Ramadan) for the Muslim holiday of Ramadan—both erected by private organizations with permission from the town.
And now, Twelve Corners Memorial Park has also become the focus of a federal lawsuit.
“I would drive by there and it was uplifting to see the Menorah, a religious symbol of hope,” Gennaro Polverino M.D., a 10-year Brighton resident, recalled to me in a phone call. “It was wonderful to see that the town was allowing the religious display. “
(A sign each year near the Menorah states it is sponsored by a private organization, not the town of Brighton.)
“But then after a few years,” Polverino continued, “I wondered, ‘How come nobody’s ever also put up a Nativity, which also invites people to have hope? So, I thought I’d look into how to do that.”
A Nativity scene is a Christmas display depicting the birth of Jesus.
Polverino, 60, has practiced family medicine and urgent care for 20 years. He’s also a devout Catholic. Raised on a small family farm near Newark, he went to Catholic school through eighth grade and later attended Gannon University, a private Catholic university in Erie, Pa. He and his wife are parishioners of Sacred Heart Cathedral, the Mother Church of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester.
In December 2023, he called Brighton Town Hall asking how to gain permission to erect a Nativity scene at Twelve Corners Memorial Park.
“I thought maybe there’re some forms I would need to complete,” he said. “But I never heard back.”
He didn’t know it then, but that call would be the first of nearly two dozen fruitless attempts he’d make—by phone, email, in person, and certified mail—over nearly two and a half years, to get an answer. He says that no matter which town officers or employees he contacted, they all either ignored his requests, passed him from one office to another, or said they’d get back to him but never did.
In the legal complaint filed on his behalf, Polverino’s counsel lists the following examples of attempts he says he made to get information from Brighton town officials:
Dec. 29, 2023—meets with commissioner of public works who promises to convey request to supervisor. No response.
Jan. 5 and 23, 2024—phones public works commissioner and assistant to the superintendent. No reply.
May 31, 2024—phones supervisor requesting meeting. No reply.
Aug. 17, 2024—sends certified letter to supervisor requesting meeting. No reply.
Aug. 26, 2024—visits supervisor’s office during normal business hours. Supervisor sees him but rather than meet, goes into his office and tells an employee to speak with him instead.
Sept. 10, 2025—hand-delivers information packet for town attorney. No response.
Oct. 20, 2025—calls town attorney. No reply.
March 12, 2026—emails supervisor, chief of staff, and town attorney. No reply.
June 12, 2026—counsel for Polverino writes supervisor detailing record of ignored requests and asking client to be permitted to erect Nativity. No reply.
If these claims are correct, it’s not clear why Supervisor Bill Moehle and other town officials ignored Polverino’s requests for information.
I called Moehle, town attorney John Mancuso, and town chief diversity officer Marianne Moore-Burt for comment. None of the calls were returned.
The town’s legal response to Polverino’s complaint is due Sept. 11.
During the decade he’s lived in Brighton, Polverino says, his previous contacts with Town Hall—once to get a dog license and another time to ask about a permit to convert his garage to an in-law suite—went fine, and his requests were approved.
“The process was clear, and everybody was pleasant,” he said.
So, why in the case of the Nativity scene, does he think the town supervisor and other officials ignored him?
“I have no idea,” he said. “I’m not going to speculate; only God knows the hearts of man.”
The lawsuit
Polverino is represented in his lawsuit, filed July 21 in federal District Court in Rochester, by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group headquartered in Washington, D.C. The group is handling the case pro bono.
I asked Polverino how he connected with the ACLJ.
“I was searching the internet about how other towns set up Nativity scenes,” he recalled, “and I ran across a fact sheet by the ACLJ, which outlined what a citizen’s rights are for that.” He forwarded the fact sheet to the Brighton town attorney, he recalls, but got no response.
Polverino’s suit claims that Brighton’s “sustained pattern of non-response, spanning multiple Christmas seasons, constitutes a de facto denial of (his) constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the law.”
It alleges that by allowing some religious groups but not others to put up displays in a public square, the town has engaged in “viewpoint discrimination.”
Courts have ruled that the government may allow free expression of viewpoints, including religious viewpoints, in a traditional public forum such as a park, so long as it’s a private organization or individual that is expressing the religious views, and not the government itself. Once having done that, the government can set reasonable restrictions on use—such as time, place, and manner of display—but it cannot allow the public space to be used for the expression of some religious views while excluding others.
Polverino, the complaint notes, “does not seek removal” of the Menorah, but seeks only “neutral and even-handed treatment” of his Nativity display.
The complaint asks the court to order the town of Brighton to permit Polverino to erect a Nativity scene each Christmas on the same terms as it permits other religious holiday displays. It also seeks compensatory or, alternatively, nominal damages.
“For two years, Dr. Polverino attempted, in good faith, to approach the town,” Abby Southerland, the ACLJ attorney handling the case, told me in a phone call. “I don’t know many people who have made so many attempts to resolve a matter without litigation. He saw the Menorah as a sign of hope and inspiration during the holiday season and his intent is not to compete with that—it’s just that the Nativity also brings a sense of hope to many people.”
Polverino said, “I want to be sure the Menorah has its place.”
Reactions
I asked Rabbi Nechemia Vogel of Chabad Lubavitch, the group that annually sponsors the Menorah at Twelve Corners Memorial Park, for a comment on Polverino’s case, but he declined to speak publicly about it.
Monica Gebell, director of Community Relations for the Jewish Federation of Rochester, stated: “If Dr. Polverino had reached out to us we might have been able to support him. Federation believes everyone should have the right to display meaningful symbols publicly that celebrate religious holidays. This same right should be granted our Christian neighbors.”
A message left at the Islamic Center of Rochester was not returned.
From EMT to urgent care
Growing up in Wayne County, Polverino remembers as a child going to the Hill Cumorah Pageant in Palmyra. “We’d take relatives visiting from Italy to see the Pageant—it was a spectacular display,” he says. “We’ve always been open to other people’s ways of living their lives; it’s strange to want to share a Nativity with others in the community and not be able to do that.”
In high school, Polverino joined Newark Volunteer Ambulance and took training as an emergency medical technician. After college, he attended medical school at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and did his residency at Forbes Hospital, Allegheny Health Network, outside Pittsburgh.
For a time, he lived out West, practicing emergency medicine and primary care with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, but later returned to this area.
“My father had died and my mother was living alone,” he recalls, “and later as her health began to fail, as the only child I came back home in 2012 to assist her.”
He practiced urgent care at St. Mary’s Hospital, subsequently part of Rochester Regional Health, and later did urgent care and then primary care at an RRH facility in Newark. Most recently, he worked full-time for a year at the VA in Canandaigua.
A planned return to RRH was delayed due to a dispute about his request for religious accommodation. He asked RRH to allow him, due to religious beliefs, not to perform or refer patients for contraception, abortion, gender transition, vasectomy, and related procedures. An agreement was not reached and, as a result, he is currently not practicing medicine. In June, a discrimination complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on his behalf by the ACLJ, the same group that is representing him in the suit against Brighton.
I asked Polverino if he sees himself as an activist for religious rights.
“Am I an activist? No, I’m just living my life,” he said, “and these are things I’ve run up against.”
Why is it important to him to have a Nativity scene displayed in a public place?
“There seems to be a lot of animosity and conflict in our community right now, and I see the Nativity as an invitation to everyone to pause, think, repent, and realize our common humanity. The Nativity is a wonderful symbol of that, ever since it was first put up by St. Francis of Assisi in 1223.”
Peter Lovenheim is Washington correspondent for the Rochester Beacon. He is author of “In the Neighborhood” and other works. His most recent book, “Gift Shop of Gratitude,” was published in 2024. He can be reached at [email protected].
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected]
Let’s make this simple. No public lands anywhere in the United States should be permitted to be utilized to advertise any religious product. Unless of course those same public lands are allowed to be used by the atheist community to peddle their product. With all parties charged a fee for the rent of the lands. The fee to be based on the estimated value of the religious property held by the organization seeking the advertising space.
there must be one rule for all religious faiths , basically all true religions , teach similar thoughts ,habits to practice in life ,
Please define what constitutes a “true religion”?
God is looking down on this and thinking, “why mankind, why?”
And one wonders why the world is in an uproar?
Wonder no more. Hate and discontent in the smallest of places.
NO, in REVERSE, spells, ON.
It is a challenge to turn NO, rejections, into acceptances, ON, in politics and in everyday life.
For years, I have tried to suggest simple, ideas, to Rochester City Schools, only to be rejected.
(For example, I suggested the use of the EASY button, from Staples, that says “That was EASY”)
NOW, in REVERSE, spells, WON
This wonderful, FREE SPEECH, RELIGIOUS lesson might wake up EDUCATORS and others!
Thank you, Rochester Beacon and Peter Lovenheim for inspiring me and others ! NOW, WON?
Well done, Peter….fair-handed reporting. I agree with all of the comments here – no surprise- – was glad to see that the Jewish Federation weighed in so eloquently and forcefully…..Phil, I am in total accord with you – – not sure RRH’s serious shortcomings belonged in this article – – Thank you for bringing this to light, Peter….and why in 2026 this is the case, is beyond me.
Shame on Bill Moehle and every other town employee who simply did not respond.
Shame on the town for ever allowing any religious display on town property. I believe in an absolute separation of church and state.
All religious display have a place…on the property of churches.
Amen ! (So to speak.)
Peter Lovenheim handled this potentially divisive subject with fairness and restraint, allowing the facts and the town’s extraordinary refusal to respond to speak for themselves. If Brighton permits privately sponsored Jewish and Muslim displays in a public park, it is difficult to understand how it could deny, or simply ignore, a Christian request for equal treatment. Religious freedom has to apply equally, or it really isn’t religious freedom.
I was also struck by Dr. Polverino’s insistence that the Menorah remain and that his Nativity scene be allowed alongside it. That makes his purpose clear: inclusion, not exclusion. The Jewish Federation’s support for his right to display the Nativity was especially gracious.
This is another example of why Brighton will elect a new Supervisor in November 2026. For years this routine of not responding, not listening and not cooperating with residents of Brighton will finally stop. Nate Salzman is a 180 degree turn from what we have lived with for more than a decade.
But with that said – is the Navitity Scene going up this holiday season? As a Jewish member of the community, I am happy to work to help make it happen- whether our current non- responding Supervisor likes it or not. I am happy to hear the Jewish Federation is in favor – remember Jesus is/was Jewish. We can all agree on that.
I disagree with the Dr.’s refusal to “perform or refer patients for contraception, abortion, gender transition, vasectomy, and related procedures.”, but that’s no reason to deny his reasonable request to put up a nativity scene.
Legally. . .this is an unforced error on the town’s part. Brighton can do better.
Seems fairly obvious what’s going on – Christianity in the US is currently right-coded, so the mostly left-leaning government employees of Brighton were hoping to ignore the request until it went away. I doubt the officials all share animosity toward Christianity, but I suspect they disliked the idea of defending the nativity display from citizens who do feel such animus. While no one wants their own job to get harder, in this case such a defense IS their job. Bill Moehle and the other officials involved should be ashamed of failing to uphold the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
And what about my rate to freedom FROM religion? It’s bad enough that my tax dollars pay for public fire and safety services provided to religious properties gratis. Why should those tax dollars also help pay for the upkeep of public property that’s turned into advertising space for competing religious products?
“No Response” and “No Reply” was a pretty poor way to handle these queries. There should either be one rule for ALL religious displays or no rules at all. We’re a diverse population that has lived under Freedom of Religion (or none at all) for 250 years and to ignore the resident of Brighton is, indeed, poor form.