Lawsuit: Crackdown on Church Soup Kitchens Violates the First Amendment
St. Timothy's Episcopal Church says that a Brookings, Oregon, law limiting its "benevolent meal service" to two days a week unconstitutionally restricts its religious mission to feed the hungry.
An Oregon church is suing the city of Brookings, Oregon, over limits the local government has imposed on how often it can serve free meals to the poor. A federal lawsuit filed Friday by St. Timothy's Episcopal Church argues that Brookings' regulations on "benevolent meal service" unconstitutionally restrict its religious mission to feed the hungry.
"What we're doing is what churches do. Churches feed people," Rev. Bernie Lindley of St. Timothy's told Reason last year, shortly after the Brookings ordinance passed. "To tell a church that they have to be limited in how they live into the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a violation of our First Amendment right to freely practice our religion."
St. Timothy's has run a soup kitchen several days a week since the 1980s, as have other churches in Brookings. When those churches shut down their meal service during the pandemic, St. Timothy's extended its effort to six days a week.
Seeing more people at the church more days a week didn't sit well with some of the neighbors. They complained in an April 2021 petition to the city government that St. Timothy's soup kitchen—and its participation in the city's safe parking program, whereby it lets people live in their cars on the church parking lot—was bringing crime and vagrancy to the area.
In response, the city council passed an ordinance in October that said churches and nonprofits in residentially zoned areas could offer free meal service only two days a week. And to do that, they needed special conditional use permits.
On paper, this was actually a liberalization of Brookings' zoning rules. Because state health authorities regulate soup kitchens like restaurants, and restaurants are a commercial use, soup kitchens were technically prohibited in the city's residential zones. And all of Brookings' churches are located in residentially zoned areas.
City Manager Janelle Howard says the ordinance was intended as a compromise: It legalized technically prohibited soup kitchens while mollifying residents' complaints about the nuisances they caused.
In practice, though, the churches' charitable work had been unregulated before. The ordinance's actual effect was to pave the way for a crackdown.
Lindley and St. Timothy's participated in early talks with the city about its soup kitchen ordinance, but they dropped out after it became clear that Brookings intended to limit the number of days the church could offer meals.
The ordinance became enforceable last week, potentially opening St. Timothy's up to fines and other sanctions. To prevent that, the church and the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
The complaint argues that Brookings' soup kitchen regulations violate the U.S. and Oregon constitutions' protections of free expression and the free exercise of religion. It also claims that the regulations' vague description of "benevolent meal service" and unclear potential sanctions violate the U.S. Constitution's due process protections.
Lastly, it argues that Brookings is violating a federal law limiting state and local governments from adopting land use regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on "religious exercise."
"We've been serving our community here for decades and picking up the slack where the need exists and no one else is stepping in," Lindley declared in a statement. "We have no intention of stopping now and we're prepared to hold fast to our beliefs. We won't abandon the people of Brookings who need our help, even when we're being threatened."
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Homeless are less likely to be vaccinated, therefore discrimination is legal.
Did I do it right?
start making 330$ per h0ur work fr0m home and i got my 4th payment previous m0nth of $21570.I was surprised when my friend tell me she was averaging $20980 per month but i see how it works n0w check this link bel0w……………,
info is here ====>> https://onlinejob50.surge.sh/
Providing food to the hungry. Oh, yes. A crime for sure.
You can’t just let people help each other without authorization!
/sarc
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savvy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… IOp It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
..
Visit following page for more information… http://moneystar33.blogspot.com
Later: “We need to tax the churches because they aren’t doing their fair share to help society”
The problem here is you also have all of the problems associated with the homeless that you are forcing onto the neighboring businesses. Each and every last one of them should sue the church for the damages and lost revenue the church is generating for their neighbors.
The proposition to limit one site to a few days a week at least made it harder to create a permanent homeless camp in one spot for all your homeless living needs. They could always work with a couple of other churches to accomplish their stated goal.
As far as I know, there is nothing stopping the neighbors from suing the church for exactly that. Well, other than the impossibility of proving the damages you are alleging.
Other than “they’re ugly people and I don’t like to look at them”, precisely what tangible damages have the neighbors alleged that could be quantifiably proven in court?
Socialists believe the state should be responsible for producing, transporting and rationing food period. No private property period.
It’s about time that younger generations crawl out of their trust fund bubble and realize that centrally planned nouveau urbanism equals the old Soviet socialist motherland. The new label “Libertarian Socialist” is a socialist troll created disaster for humanity.
This is indeed the church’s mission. It’s NOT to put up shrines to Trump, or genuflect to Biden, or be safe social clubs. Jesus did not get along, why should his followers? He told his followers to feed the hungry, to visit those in prison, to support the widows. Why should his followers do any different?
Too many Christians think their mission is fulfilled if they transform the church into a social club. Jesus has some harsh words to say to them.
I’ve helped with my church’s food distribution. I can see how neighbors could get upset. Most of the people are fine, some very few you’d want to stay upwind of, here and there are the easily antagonized.
And the church used to let a homeless man live in the abandoned sexton’s house, he would occasionally stop taking his medication and hit a parishioner once.
So I could see where the neighbors could have actually had some run ins, let alone concerns.
The town’s response still leaves something to be desired. Especially since it helped create the situation with its “safe parking program”.
Maybe if they didn’t put their town so close to California, they wouldn’t be experiencing this homelessness problem.
Maybe if they didn’t put it in the same state as Portland and Eugene.
Housing prices in Oregon are even more offensive than California. Sure homes are more expensive in Cali but you can also make a lot more income than in Oregon. I am from just over the state line and we all know that Brookings has zero affordable housing, absolutely none available. What few rentals there are get rented by the day as vacation rentals. I had to move to Medford just to find a rental back in 2005, I lived there 15 years till I was forced out by skyrocketing rents and total lack of choice and availability there as well. A townhouse that rented for $725 in 2013 in Central Point now goes for $1,600. I bought a large pool home on a third acre in a deed restricted community in the greater Tampa area and my house payments are less than my last (HOVEL) of an apartment in Medford. Oregon simply does not want a middle class at all, they want people on government programs so they can force them to live by government rules. They refuse to make housing a priority then bitch about the homeless.
I suffered a house fire in New York December of 2001 and was homeless till 2005 on and off, mostly on. I stayed all the time I could get away with at Loeb State Park outside of Brookings. And all I can say is that Oregon has become unlivable for anyone making less than $70 grand per year for a single head of household.
People who blame the homeless for their poverty really should have to live through it sometime, you will be too much of a snowflake to survive it mostly, but those that do will never complain about the homeless again. Because homelessness in America is worse than any other kind of discrimination. Once in that situation it is all but impossible to get out of it.
hey Oregon the Soup Nazi was just a tv character
Regarding the actual constitutional issue – the First Amendment guarantees me freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean I can entice children to masturbate me behind their schoolhouse. Freedom of religion is no more absolute than freedom of speech. Jesus overthrew the tables of the moneylenders; you and i cannot turn over desks at the local bank. Feeding people is a good thing – I volunteer at the local food pantry – but it’s reasonable to ask whether it deserves the protection of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights does not say that anyone can do any damn thing they want.
It is in a nice, quiet residential neighborhood, which is the case for many churches.
People who live in heavily developed urban areas might not know this, but life in small towns and suburbs is fairly safe, You don’t see bars bolted over people’s windows, because they are unnecessary. Kids can play in the neighborhood. The shed you keep your tools and lawn mower in behind the house probably does not have a lock on it.
Once some magnet for vagrants starts drawing them to your neighborhood, whether it be a soup kitchen, a homeless encampment, or a crack house, all of that changes. There will always be lots of people with substance abuse problems or mental illness wandering through your yard, shooting up in your kid’s tree house, or worse.
If you can only feel like you are free to practice your religion if you are allowed to destroy neighborhoods, you need to reevaluate your beliefs.
So you think those desperately poor people are migrating into the area just for the soup kitchen? No, those people were already there. You just chose not to see them when they were scattered all through the neighborhood scavenging in dumpsters instead of clustered together (and being treated like humans) at the soup kitchen.
Those poor people where already there and they make your neighborhood no more (or less) dangerous now that you see them.
Not all people needing food assistance are totally without means, a lot of them still do own cars. Certainly the people living in their cars in the church parking lot have cars.
Which doesn’t mean that they cause extra (or less) problems. Just that they may have come from out of the neighborhood.
People coming only for a meal though, if you drive too far it probably isn’t worth it, unless you have another reason to be there, like shed pilfering.
Hey! If we have loving, charitable, private organizations feeding people, the government’s share through food stamp use will decline. This will make it seem as if democraps don’t care about the poor (after keeping them locked in poverty). Plus, churches lift people spiritually, while democraps lift peoples’ anger levels through their venomous tyranny.