Some residents of the small city of Murdock voiced opposition to the council’s decision on Thursday through the local Murdock Area Alliance Against Hate. In a statement posted on the alliance’s Facebook page, MAAAH said residents “no longer feel safe” as a result of the Asatru Folk Assembly (AFA) finding a home in their small city, which the Census Bureau estimated had a population of fewer than 300 people in 2019.

“Yesterday was a devastating and difficult day for Murdock,” MAAAH’s statement said. “Residents no longer feel safe with the presence of the Asatru Folk Assembly in their community.”

The AFA’s website features a group ethics page with a section on family values. “We in Asatru support strong, healthy white family relationships,” the section says. “We want our children to grow up to be mothers and fathers to white children of their own. We believe that those activities and behaviors supportive of the white family should be encouraged while those activities and behaviors destructive of the white family are to be discouraged.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies the AFA as a hate group.

An AFA member previously told the Murdock City Council that the group would not allow Black members, according to the Star Tribune. Murdock Mayor Craig Kavanagh said at the start of Wednesday’s meeting that the council’s decision was about zoning, not race.

“We, as the leaders of the City of Murdock, want it to be known that the City of Murdock condemns racism in all its forms: conscious, unconscious, any place, any time, now and in the future,” Kavanagh said in a statement posted on the city’s Facebook page. “We are committed to building a community that promotes equal justice and opportunity for every single person regardless of their race.”

A city attorney warned the council before its vote that rejecting the AFA’s permit request could be seen as a violation of the pro-white group’s religious freedom, according to the Star Tribune. The city’s official resolution approving the AFA’s permit request also mentioned this concern.

“Denial of the CUP request would constitute a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the AFA because it would effectively prohibit it from practicing its religious exercise without any alternative available and doing so would not further a compelling public interest,” the resolution said. The city went on to say in its resolution that concerns residents made about the AFA’s presence in Murdock were unrelated to the issue regarding the group’s conditional use permit, or CUP.

The AFA celebrated the council’s 3-1 vote to approve its permit in a Facebook post on Wednesday. “To the City Council of Murdock, thank you,” the post said. “We know there was a lot of pressure on you to deny us our permit and right to worship. We appreciate your fairness and this opportunity.”

In a separate statement posted on the city of Murdock’s Facebook page on Thursday, Kavanagh acknowledged the controversy surrounding the decision but said the council was “highly advised by multiple legal sources to not deny the permit” because of the religious freedom implications.

“The vote last night had nothing to do with beliefs or race, it was strictly a zoning issue the council felt like it needed to legally abide by or it would have caused a substantial burden to the town,” Kavanagh said in his statement. “We as a council still want what is best for the City of Murdock and will always do so. If you think this decision was a cakewalk and you jump to a conclusion that because we approved the CUP zoning we are racists, you are dead wrong.”

In a statement shared with Newsweek, the MAAAH said the council’s decision was influenced by a “fear of litigation.”

“MAAAH’s stance is that the city council allowed fear of litigation to dictate their decision instead of listening to the genuine safety concerns of Murdock residents,” the statement said.

Newsweek reached out to the AFA for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.