491
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 98 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago

Kudos for doing additional research and sharing it with sources!

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 20 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

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!

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

It looks like a nice enough place.

It also looks pretty rich.

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

City-Data

There are over 60 households with income under 30k, so more evidence the people at the soup kitchen arent outsiders.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Yeah, that plot says it all. The distribution is skewed to be wealthier than the average to the point that there are twice as many families making >200k than making 30k.

[-] match@pawb.social 4 points 7 months ago

trans graph trans graph

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago

You make the bold assumption those advocating for this consider the homeless “people”

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

I try not to be tooooo judgemental in my reporting.

I'd love to see an AITA post from one of these people though!

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

I used to love reading that on reddit, but when I subscribed to it here my feed was immediately swamped with AITA ... so I unsubscribed.

An occasional read is fine, but too much makes it seem like we're all myopic selfish ijits that, although it may be true, does not give me hope for our survival.

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I normal don't read that type of thing, but if just be curious to see how these people justify wanted to back homeless people getting fed and cleaned up by the church.

Most of the Reddit ones I felt were fake to begin with, and there's enough real negative stuff I need to read to stay informed that I didn't need the negativity for "fun."

[-] bluGill@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

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)

this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
491 points (99.4% liked)

News

23360 readers
1857 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS