1y ago

Oregon city can't limit church's homeless meal services, federal judge rules

A federal judge has ruled that a southern Oregon city can’t limit a local church’s homeless meal services.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke found that an ordinance passed by the small city of Brookings, on the southern Oregon coast, violated the religious freedom rights of St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, KGW reported. He issued his opinion on Wednesday.

The 2021 ordinance limited the church’s homeless meal services to two days a week, and required a permit to serve free food in residential areas. It was passed in response to resident complaints.

The church sued the city in 2022, saying the ordinance violated its right to freely practice religion.

52 comments

I wish more people expressed their faith by caring for people.
- If only they had a role model that would have taught them that!
  Maybe they could have written it down in a book they could turn to for guidance.
  Or if they would hold weekly meetings to discuss it.
  🤣
  
  Think of the following this person would have had if they had been killed for their teachings.
  They would have become a martyr and an example for others for years, decades, centuries to come.
- Plenty do. You just don't associate with that segment of society and it doesn't make headlines.
  
  I took it as picking on the hypocritical people, not all churchgoers.
  I'm actually surprised how pro-church this thread has been compared to most posts. Even some apparent church-haters have given the church credit in this thead.

I looked up where this ordinance came from.
From AP
The ordinance against serving more than two free meals a week came in response to a petition from people living near the church, who said the church’s programs were creating public safety problems, Jefferson Public Radio reported.
The petition, which refers to the people around St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church as “vagrants” and “undesirables,” was signed by 30 people.
The town has about 7000 residents if you want to get an idea about what I'm percentage of the residents seem to find this to be a problem.
The church website claims they serve 210+ meals a week. Even if we assume everyone comes back for every meal, that's 35 people.
So if we look to serve the greatest good, it seems helping the homeless helps more people than if they were to help the judgemental NIMBYs.
From the in OPs post:
The city is currently asking the church to stop shower and advocacy services also bringing in homeless people into the neighborhood.
A church not bathing and protecting the poor really does seem to go against what I feel what most would say a church should stand for. I'm going to side with the church here.
- I find things like this to be a fun exercise of Google Fu.
  They're usually so thinly veiled attempts at prejudice or racism you can let the facts do all the talking just by following back article links a few steps to get great quotes and numbers to show these people for who they are.
- For reference, Brookings is a little podunk town along the coast way down in the corner of Oregon near the California border. It's highly unlikely that these homeless people are coming in from out of town since it's far from any large city, so the people that are being attracted to this church already live in Brookings.
  
  My thought as well when looking at the photo in the wiki when I grabbed the population count.
  You never know though, those mountains could be full of phantom homeless!
- You make the bold assumption those advocating for this consider the homeless “people”
  
  I try not to be tooooo judgemental in my reporting.
  I'd love to see an AITA post from one of these people though!
- A church should stand for whatever the tenants of the religion is. Christian is common in the us and generally holds help the poor as a tenant (as do several others) but tht doesn't mean they all do.
  
  I agree. I was just saying that it does indeed sound like what a church should be doing and the town is wrong for trying to make them stop doing these things. If the homeless were indeed doing bad things, I'm sure there were existing laws that could have stopped them, but since there were no violations, I presume, they had to invent new laws they would be in violation of.
  (Polite correction for you also: a tenant is someone who rents or occupies someone else's tenements (a house/dwelling/residence), while a tenet is a principle or belief)

On the one hand, I'm happy for this ruling.
On the other hand, the church shouldn't have to do it in the first place because a government that actually cared about its citizens wouldn't let any of them go hungry.
- This government actively worked to prevent it.
  I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the government was trying to get religion out of the job of taking care of citizens while setting up a city food bank... but I won't because it was in response to a petition signed by 30 people (out of 7000).
- When will ppl understand...
  A government will never care significantly abt jts citizens unless it's small snd localized. That's why a smaller government is better.
  
  Weird, because Sweden's big government seems to do quite well caring significantly about its citizens. Along with the other Scandinavian countries.

- Straight to jail.

What's amazing here is that some Karen/Chad had to complain about it to other Karens and Chads who then enacted this hateful law.
- What's amazing here is that a judge thinks feeding people is a religious belief.
  
  I don't see that as a stretch. Religions throughout history have held that we must act altruistically and help others, though adherents often don't respect that part of it all. For reference, I am a strict atheist.
  
  Certainly makes more sense as a religious belief than not giving employees birth control.
  
  But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
  Luke 14:13-14
  Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
  Luke 10:30-37
  Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
  Matthew 6:19-20
  But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth
  John 3:17-18
  I would argue NOTHING is more central to Christianity than helping the homeless. And that's before we start getting into comparative religion and finding that almost every religion emphasizes enlightenment coming from giving compassion to those that have nothing
  
  This quickly upset Rev. Lindley from St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, who said feeding people is an essential part of their faith.
  "That's the way we express our faith: by caring for people who are on the margins, especially people who are hungry," he said.
  https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/brookings-church-wins-lawsuit-city-serving-free-meals/283-23539b57-8b1d-4fb7-b9a9-4d06c8242e97
  
  It absolutely is if you follow the word of Christ. Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed Christians reject the word of Christ.

For once I'm on the side of church. Fuck that city for even passing such an ordinance in the first place.

Get fucked Brookings, I hope none of you hate-filled shitheads considered yourself a Christian.
Cause you ain't
- It's only 30 people out of 7000 upset, so maybe don't raze the town yet. 🤔
  Check out my other comment for some more details.
  
  maybe don't raze the town yet. 🤔
  How ELSE do you suggest we spend Easter? Painting "rabbit" eggs and revering an ancient zombie? 😛

The fact that this went to court in the first place is just insane. This was an attempt at the removal of freedom for cruelty's sake.

Surprised brookings would be so conservative, I expected this to be in eastern oregon.

52 comments