Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

Taking up ivysaur12's invitation, I thought I'd offer some pushback against the "RFRA-is-a-license-to-discriminate" nonsense by pointing to one way in which such laws are actually being used.

From MySanAntonio.com:

Joan Cheever, founder of the nonprofit mobile food truck known as the Chow Train, was cited last Tuesday by San Antonio police officers for feeding the homeless in Maverick Park.

Cheever has been serving restaurant-quality meals to the city's homeless population for the past 10 years, and has been profiled on Rachel Ray's cooking show for her charitable efforts.

...

Cheever has a food permit for her mobile truck, but she was cited for transporting and serving the food from a vehicle other than that truck.

Cheever is scheduled to go before Municipal Court on June 23, but she remained defiant after receiving the citation, arguing that under the 1999 Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, she has a right to serve food to the homeless because she considers it a free exercise of her religion.

Huffington Post has a few more details:

As she'd done every Tuesday for years, Cheever was giving out free meals from her food truck in a public park last week when police rolled up and started writing a ticket. Right away, she told the officers they were burdening her free exercise of religion, according to an on-the-scene report from Texas Public Radio. Cheever pointed to the federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts[.]

"One of the police officers said, 'Ma'am if you want to pray, go to church,'" Cheever told the local NBC affiliate last week. "And I said, 'This is how I pray, when I cook this food and deliver it to the people who are less fortunate.'"

The actual usage of state and federal RFRAs has been lost amidst agenda-driven propaganda. Very few invocations of the law (or similar legal standards) involve an attempt to be exempted from anti-discrimination laws, and those few attempts have not been successful. RFRAs prescribe a balancing test for courts to use in deciding whether a given law can be enforced against a religious objector. Those courts that have addressed the issue have all decided that the government's interest in preventing discrimination outweighs the objector's complaint.

Cheever's proposed defense is closer to the sort of defense for which RFRAs are designed. That's not to say she'll definitely win (because, as I said above, RFRAs create a balancing test; they do not dictate the outcome), but her case does bring to mind a couple of earlier Texas cases, including one in which a minister successfully challenged a city ordinance that outlawed his halfway house for recently released inmates, and another in which a ministry was permitted to keep feeding the homeless despite not meeting all the requirements of a Dallas ordinance for doing so.

A Google search of NeoGAF for "Cheever" within the past month returned no results, so sell me to homeless people from an unlicensed truck if old.

 

[ActuallyHulk]

Good on her and I hope she is able to continue feeding them.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Feeding people is outlawed? Why not make homeless people's mere existence illegal while you are at it?

If I were her, I would start charging them 1 penny so she could say she is running a business.

 

[Polari]

Don't know whether to laugh or cry that she's been doing this for ten years and what does the state give her?

A citation.

 

[Volimar]

So if she had just used her permitted food truck to dispense the food she'd have been okay? Weird.

 

[FelixOrion]

"One of the police officers said, 'Ma'am if you want to pray, go to church,'" Cheever told the local NBC affiliate last week. "And I said, 'This is how I pray, when I cook this food and deliver it to the people who are less fortunate.'"

Preach.

 

[Suikoguy]

Please see my later post, this was was too unfocused and put together over too many edits.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Joan Cheever, founder of the nonprofit mobile food truck known as the Chow Train, was cited last Tuesday by San Antonio police officers for feeding the homeless in Maverick Park.

I don't care if she's using an unlicensed truck

What kind of a rotten subhuman piece of shit do you have to be as a cop to see someone handing out meals to homeless people and to go write them a ticket..

 

[DarthWoo]

So wait, you're saying that because RFRAs in some states are used the way they are supposed to be used, we can pretend that the legislative history of the Indiana RFRA, including lobbyists who were blatantly against SSM and who demanded that any language explicitly preventing its use in a discriminatory way be excluded, and who demanded that Pence not sign any amendment for the same after the SHTF, didn't actually imply any intention that Indiana's RFRA was meant to protect against discrimination claims?

 

[oxrock]

Feeding people is outlawed? Why not make homeless people's mere existence illegal while you are at it?

If I were her, I would start charging them 1 penny so she could say she is running a business.

Homeless people existing pretty much already is illegal. You can get harassed constantly for loitering if nothing else. Try simply existing in a neighborhood where it's deemed that you don't belong and your life will become a living hell.

 

[Dude Abides]

She'll probably lose since, among other things, she could habe used the licensed vehicle.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So wait, you're saying that because RFRAs in some states are used the way they are supposed to be used, we can pretend that the legislative history of the Indiana RFRA, including lobbyists who were blatantly against SSM and who demanded that any language explicitly preventing its use in a discriminatory way be excluded, and who demanded that Pence not sign any amendment for the same after the SHTF, didn't actually imply any intention that Indiana's RFRA was meant to protect against discrimination claims?

If you want my thoughts on the Indiana RFRA and the relevance of its legislative history, we had a whole thread devoted to that discussion. In short, the legislative history is principally relevant to voters assessing the conduct of their elected officials in enacting it, but far less so in understanding how courts would actually apply it. On that question, courts would look to analogous cases from other jurisdictions applying a similar standard.

The point of this thread is to highlight how RFRAs are actually used, and to point out that it isn't merely the religious objector that is harmed by the lack of such laws. Of course, Cheever's defense has not yet succeeded, and it's possible that it may fail, but ivysaur12 was right: it makes no sense to complain that only hypothetical negative invocations are discussed on GAF when I have the power to bring up its actual positive invocations.

EDIT:

She'll probably lose since, among other things, she could habe used the licensed vehicle.

That really gets to the heart of the case: is Cheever's free exercise substantially burdened by the requirement that she use the permitted food truck? And if so, does the city have a compelling interest in imposing that requirement &c.? The city will no doubt argue precisely what you say here, but they'll have to contend with this language from the SCOTX opinion I mentioned in the OP: "In any event, a burden on a person's religious exercise is not insubstantial simply because he could always choose to do something else."

 

[Suikoguy]

My earlier post was a mess, so I deleted it and repurposed some of its points in a proper format.
In particular, this is a takedown of the last example that was in the OP about Big Hart Ministries.

1.) Apparently, when feeding the homeless; sanitation is not important. In some ways I get that it's for "The Greater Good" but wouldn't the city setting things up, or a charity setting things up in such a way to provide both food and sanitation make more sense. Why is it that religious freedom exempts you from basic sanitation requirements?

The council will also vote to significantly loosen its existing “homeless feeding” food ordinance. Among the changes to the city code: People hoping to feed the homeless — wherever, whenever — will no longer be forced to provide portable toilets or hand-washing facilities at locations where food is being distributed. The city is also removing from its ordinance the part that says “at least one person who has attended a city-sponsored food safety training class must be present at all times when food is being served to the homeless.” When the ministries pleaded their case to U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis in 2012, they claimed those restrictions alone effectively barred them from feeding the homeless.

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/...after-judge-ruled-them-unconstitutional.html/
Perhaps if the argument was instead that the requirements were too substantial a burden. That the city council intentionally created a situation that made it impossible to feed the homeless. But based on the information available, I'm not seeing much in the way of unreasonable requirements. I will agree, that perhaps requiring them to provide poop and pee locations probably does add quite a bit to the cost, and it's probably the biggest example of it being a significant burden. I can't think of many examples where fast food stands on street corners and the like have a portable potty nearby.

2.) The court ruling made it so that non-religious still have to abide by the rules. So apparently charity is a exclusively religious notion? Shit, I had no idea, I should have never donated to my local food bank if atheists can't be charitable. However, the city DID alter its rules reducing the impact of this argument. But it does show some of the absurdity.

But the victory is a narrow one. The city's homeless feeding ordinance remains intact, except where it concerns the plaintiffs and, by extension, other groups who feel a religious duty to serve the underfed. Those of you who simply feel sorry for the unhoused, without the backing of religious conviction? Drop those plans to hand out sandwiches on a street corner.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/03/federal_judge_dallas_cant_keep.php

3.) Proving your religious convictions is apparently not needed. You just have to say it's for a religious reason. Which actually goes against the litmus test that is so often brought up as an argument that discrimination won't happen. Since they will have to prove it's a substantial burden against their religious belief.

“At trial, various witnesses have testified that these two organizations did not have religious beliefs that they could identify, did not know what the religious beliefs were, some members of these organizations were themselves also organizations, that some members could have religious beliefs that conflicted with the religious belief of other members, that you didn’t have to have any beliefs to belong to the organizations, and that you could be an Atheist and be a member of the organization,” city attorneys wrote. “With all this variation, it is impossible to determine what the religious belief of these organizations is.”

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/...after-judge-ruled-them-unconstitutional.html/

 

[Vance]

Can she just use the bible? Isn't Texas big on using it to ban equal rights and teach creationism in school. The part about helping and feeding the less fortunate is illegal?

 

[Volimar]

How does one demonstrate a deeply held religious belief?

 

[Jackpot]

This isn't really a good example as someone's essentially mis-used it get round an existing law. It's an immoral law in this case but the RFRA wasn't meant to be used this way.

 

[Metaphoreus]

My earlier post was a mess, so I deleted it and repurposed some of its points in a proper format.
In particular, this is a takedown of the last example that was in the OP about Big Hart Ministries.

1.) Apparently, when feeding the homeless; sanitation is not important. In some ways I get that it's for "The Greater Good" but wouldn't the city setting things up, or a charity setting things up in such a way to provide both food and sanitation make more sense. Why is it that religious freedom exempts you from basic sanitation requirements?

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/...after-judge-ruled-them-unconstitutional.html/
Perhaps if the argument was instead that the requirements were too substantial a burden. That the city council intentionally created a situation that made it impossible to feed the homeless. But based on the information available, I'm not seeing much in the way of unreasonable requirements. I will agree, that perhaps requiring them to provide poop and pee locations probably does add quite a bit to the cost, and it's probably the biggest example of it being a significant burden. I can't think of many examples where fast food stands on street corners and the like have a portable potty nearby.

2.) The court ruling made it so that non-religious still have to abide by the rules. So apparently charity is a exclusively religious notion? Shit, I had no idea, I should have never donated to my local food bank if atheists can't be charitable. However, the city DID alter its rules reducing the impact of this argument. But it does show some of the absurdity.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/03/federal_judge_dallas_cant_keep.php

3.) Proving your religious convictions is apparently not needed. You just have to say it's for a religious reason. Which actually goes against the litmus test that is so often brought up as an argument that discrimination won't happen. Since they will have to prove it's a substantial burden against their religious belief.

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/...after-judge-ruled-them-unconstitutional.html/

Thanks for revising your post. This version makes your arguments more clearly (and with less hostility).

(1) The federal district court in Big Hart went through each challenged requirement and found that they imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Big Hart Ministries Association, Inc. and Rip Parker Memorial Homeless Ministry. The court then considered the justifications put forward by the City of Dallas, finding that they were either too general to be compelling interests or not specific to the details of Big Hart's and Rip Parker's ministries. Regarding the requirement of handwashing facilities, the court wrote:

The testimony at trial established that neither Plaintiff regards the concept of handwashing as unreasonable or burdensome. . . .

After examining all the evidence in this case, the Court finds the handwashing and disposal of wastewater provisions pose a substantial burden on Plaintiffs' ability to serve food to the homeless in accordance with their religious beliefs. It is impractical and unnecessary for every Rip Parker volunteer to fill and transport a five-gallon container, a catch basin, soap, and paper towels for their own use to every location on their food delivery route each night. Further, the evidence established that Rip Parker's volunteers wash their hands at the food preparation site with soap and water. The evidence also established that hand sanitizer is an adequate substitute for keeping hands clean and germ-free.

Second, it is impractical and burdensome for Plaintiffs to collect the "wastewater" from each handwashing and, after all the food is served, dispose of it in a government-approved manner. The Ordinance requires servers to collect and transport all "wastewater," determine what constitutes an "approved" container, identify, locate and interpret the federal, state, and local regulations relating to liquid waste disposal, and then dispose of the wastewater in the prescribed manner. The amount of time and effort Plaintiffs would have to expend to comply with this provision places an unreasonable and substantial burden on their ability to feed the homeless in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Regarding the government's interest in preventing the spread of foodborne illness, the court wrote:

The City also contends the [Ordinance's] hand washing requirement operates "to prevent the spread of foodborne illness and disease by having hand washing equipment available at the location for hand washing.["] . . .

To establish that the prevention of the spread of foodborne illnesses is a compelling interest in this case, the City must show the interest is "tailored to the specific issue at hand" or "the particular practice at issue["]--here, homeless feeding (both mobile and fixed-site). Thus, for the city to prevail, it must show by specific evidence--not mere speculation--that Plaintiffs' "religious practices jeopardize its stated interests." This it has not done.

The City has presented no evidence that Plaintiffs' feeding operations have caused the spread of any foodborne illness. It has presented no evidence that the volunteers' hand washing practices have caused the spread of any foodborne illnesses. The City has not presented any evidence that Plaintiffs have failed to keep their hands clean during the preparation or serving of food. The City has not presented any evidence that Plaintiffs failed to provide hand washing equipment to their volunteers or to the homeless individuals. In fact, the evidence at trial was to the contrary. Both Big Hart and Rip Parker's witnesses testified they had access to and used hand washing equipment (soap and water and/or hand sanitizer) to keep their hands clean while preparing and serving food. Mr. Edwards testified that, to his knowledge, not a single homeless person has gotten sick from eating food prepared by Rip Parker. Dana Hart-Ball testified that no one has ever gotten sick from eating at one of Big Hart's events and if someone had, she would know about it.

In fact, according to Dr. O'Connell, the homeless are at greater risk of contracting a foodborne illness when the mobile feeders do not feed them and they are forced to get their food from unsanitary dumpsters. He also testified he has studied the issue of the homeless and foodborne illness and has concluded that the greatest risk comes from shelters with kitchens that are serving large numbers of people, not from mobile feeding units. Dr. O'Connell has studied this area "carefully" and has not learned of a single incident of a homeless individual contracting a foodborne illness as a result of people bringing food to small numbers out in the community.

While the City is not required to wait until people are sickened and harmed by homeless feeders' unsanitary practices before regulating their operations, it is not permitted to assert a compelling interest in practically excluding religious-based feeding groups from operating in this way based on nothing more than speculation.[FN11]

[FN11] The City's speculation during trial was rampant. The City speculated a health hazard might occur if someone "makes an egg salad sandwich with mayonnaise and leaves it in the car at 150 degrees and is riding around looking for homeless folks." It speculated that a health hazard might occur if one of its volunteers has a contagious disease that could contaminate the food. It speculated that someone might "post as a Big Hart volunteer so it could access the homeless and harm them by giving them tainted food.["] The City speculated that a homeless feeder group might put its volunteers in danger by "provid[ing] food on a busy highway."

As you can see, the court focused its judgment on the specific requirements at issue in this particular case, not on an abstract interest in sanitation.

(2) The court was not called upon to answer--and so did not answer--the question of whether, or to what extent, an atheist might be protected under the RFRA. But an atheist could argue that (a) his or her atheism (or, say, humanism) is a religious belief that entails that helping the needy is a moral imperative, or (b) that the RFRA must protect the exercise of even non-religious moral beliefs, lest it impermissibly discriminate on the basis of religion or establish a religion.

(3) You're quoting the government's lawyers arguing for a new trial. Here are the facts as Judge Solis found them:

The City argues Rip Parker failed to establish it held a sincere religious belief.[FN6] Having heard all the trial testimony and having reviewed all the trial exhibits, the Court finds that Rip Parker was a ministry, organized and operated to fulfill the Christian mission of feeding the homeless. Its founder and director of day-to-day operations, Mr. Edwards, presented testimony and evidence that its members were primarily church groups of different Christian denominations--but with the unified purpose of fulfilling Christ's command to feed the needy/homeless. Though its individual participants were not required to be of a particular religion, they did share religious beliefs with the homeless when sharing food with them. One of the members/volunteers, Mr. McIntyre, testified that Rip Parker volunteers distributed Christian literature to the homeless (e.g., Bibles) and prayed with them, "telling them that God loves them and trying to get them off the streets." Rip Parker was founded and continues to operate based on the principle that the Bible and Christianity compel mankind to seek out homeless individuals and provide them with food and prayer wherever they are located at a given time. Rip Parker's witnesses offered compelling evidence that Rip Parker is motivated by a sincerely-held religious belief that God and the Bible instruct mankind to feed the hungry and pray with them wherever they may be.

[FN6] The City does not argue that . . . Big Hart lack a sincerely-held religious belief.

How does one demonstrate a deeply held religious belief?

By testimony, principally.

This isn't really a good example as someone's essentially mis-used it get round an existing law. It's an immoral law in this case but the RFRA wasn't meant to be used this way.

That's literally what the RFRA is designed to do. It creates an exemption from other laws when those other laws unjustifiably impose a substantial burden on a person's exercise of religion.

 

[BertramCooper]

Metaphoreus and ivysaur are the Scalia and Ginsburg of GAF.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Metaphoreus and ivysaur are the Scalia and Ginsburg of GAF.

Oh, I'm nowhere as pretty as Ginsburg.