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.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Plenty do. You just don’t associate with that segment of society and it doesn’t make headlines.

    • anon6789@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      🤣

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Get fucked Brookings, I hope none of you hate-filled shitheads considered yourself a Christian.

    Cause you ain’t

    • anon6789@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        maybe don’t raze the town yet. 🤔

        How ELSE do you suggest we spend Easter? Painting “rabbit” eggs and revering an ancient zombie? 😛

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • lilsolar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Weird, because Sweden’s big government seems to do quite well caring significantly about its citizens. Along with the other Scandinavian countries.

        • lilsolar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Lol no? Have u seen their crime rate increase significantly. It’s acc dangerous mow + expensive.

  • anon6789@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 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.

      • anon6789@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 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.