Sunday, April 19, 2015
Fined for Feeding the Homeless
Religious freedom laws have recently been thrust into the center of the American political discourse. As many fear the possibility of people using these “freedoms” to discriminate against specific groups of people it is also important to realize what these laws are supposed to protect.
Every Tuesday for the last decade, Joan Cheever hands out free meals to the homeless out of her food truck. Last week, as she was performing her weekly ritual in a public park in San Antonio, Texas she was fined two thousand dollars by police for not having the correct permits for a mobile vendor. However, Cheever immediately asserted that in this instance the police were impeding her free exercise of a religion and mentioned Texas’ Freedom of Restoration Act. As Cheever recounts her claims of religious freedom was met with the response from one of the police offers saying “Ma'am if you want to pray, go to church” to which Cheever responded “This is how I pray, when I cook this food and deliver it to the people who are less fortunate.” Cheever has stated that she plans to fight the fine and last week returned to feeding the homeless -this time with a large blown-up version of the Freedom of Restoration Act next to her truck.
Upon initial review it is frustrating to see somebody who is deliberately trying to aid needy persons be punished for their generosity. It appears that Cheever is acting out of the goodness of her heart and the natural reaction is that she should be celebrated not reprimanded for her actions. At the same time, the City of San Antonio maintains that there is a vested state interest in this situation. As the city declares through its spokesmen “The citation was issued for failing to adhere to long-standing regulations that are in place to ensure public health and safety.” In the eyes of the city of San Antonio, Cheever is breaking the law and the fact that it is by feeding the homeless is irrelevant. Instead, they say, she should perhaps volunteer at the homeless shelter downtown.
Cheever’s claims of a burden to her religious exercise are especially interesting since the act of feeding the homeless, while often associated with religious organizations-is not considered by most to be a religious act. The “If you want to pray, go to church” line coming from one of the police officers is indicative of this viewpoint. However, it is very difficult to discern what the core tenets of an individual’s faith are. It is worth noting that on her website http://www.thechowtrain.com/ there is absolutely no mention of religion in her mission. However, I encourage you to check out the website, view the videos and see what she is doing.
I believe the same Supreme Court that heard Employment Division v. Smith would in this instance side in favor of the city of San Antonio. Just as religious beliefs do not excuse the Native American workers from compliance with a law that is valid in its attempt to regulate conduct the court would conclude the same could be applied to Cheever. There is no question, that there is state interest in Cheever’s case and the city is trying to look after the best interests of its population.
In the majority opinion of Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia writes that allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” However, in this instance, I disagree-I believe Cheever should be granted an exemption and not be forced to go through the burdensome processes of spending money to get the necessary permits etc.
It is dangerous to say that the state’s Freedom of Restoration Act allows for a wanton disregard of valid laws put in place by government. However, I believe that in this isolated incident she should be allowed to continue giving food to the homeless because it is a valid expression of her faith and even if it is not-it is beneficial to the City of San Antonio.
Cheever estimates that every Tuesday she serves between twenty five and seventy five people. As she is quoted as saying after she was fined “you can’t just turn away from your neighbor when they’re in need. We don’t do that in San Antonio.” What sort of message does it send when a noble person is restricted from aiding the homeless and financially punished because of it? As long as the food is safe I believe the government should not be getting involved. Except for moral gratification and fulfillment Cheever operates a non-profit and receives no financial reward for her actions. I would feel comfortable saying that we need more people like Joan Cheever.
What do you think should happen to Ms. Cheever? Do you buy her claims that the Freedom of Restoration Act protects her rights? Is she taking advantage of this Act? or do you believe that the city’s perceived interests trump the individuals?
0 Responses to “Fined for Feeding the Homeless ”
Post a Comment