Is Permission Needed to Help the Homeless?

 

In the winter of 2023, the Burien Free Methodist Church openly expressed its desire to host an encampment of one hundred homeless individuals for a time of about three months. The city of Burien repeatedly asked the church to file a formal application to use the land as a temporary living space for those in need. Burien City has a clear municipal code (BMC 19.05.030) that expresses what types of land usage do not need approval by the government, “...the Code specifically designates the following land uses in a multi-family zone: townhomes, apartments, family day care homes, daycare centers, mixed-use buildings, public park, and recreation facilities, community residential facilities, nursing homes, religious facilities, schools, assisted living facilities, essential public facilities, government facilities, public utilities, personal wireless services facilities, community gardens, and enhanced services facilities”. Any other utilization of land not described in the Burien Municipal Code requires an application for temporary use. The city tried to make the process more appealing to the Church by waiving the application fee and expressing their support for the encampment. Yet, the organization continued to refuse as they felt the need to apply violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, their First Amendment right of free exercise, and the constitutional right of free speech. 

The Church continued on with their homeless encampment disregarding the city's requests. This resulted in Burien issuing an increasing monetary penalty amongst the church called a “Notice of Violation”, but they nullified these charges when the encampment ended. The fines were a way of establishing law and authority without the actual intent of terminating the encampment. 

The Burien Municipal Code has a similar goal to Thomas Jefferson's to “promote the general public health, safety, comfort, and welfare of the residents of the city of Burien”. Essentially the reason for this code and application process is to maintain the purpose of “peace and good order” just on a smaller scale than Jefferson was describing about the entire nation. The code is facially neutral in the sense that it applies to all religious and non-religious groups who own property in Burien, but who is to say that there is no bias present in the application process? What if certain religious groups are denied permits, while non-religious groups are accepted? Would that be an establishment of religion?

Mark Miller, the pastor of the Burien Free Methodist Church, feels that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment should allow the church to carry out its religious obligation of almsgiving without seeking any permission from the government. He feels that civil magistrates should not be left to decide what religious actions are admissible on their property if no harm is intended.  On the other hand, the Burien city government believes that it is within its jurisdiction to control what usages of city zones are permissible. The city views the code as an unbiased necessity to promote structure and stability. Is this truly a scenario that involves the free exercise clause? If so, to what extent can authority restrict religious free exercise?

What we are truly evaluating here is whether or not the Burien Free Methodist Church’s constitutional right of free exercise is being infringed upon by Burien City’s zoning laws which require the church to obtain a permit before pursuing the homeless encampment? 

The reason I struggled so much to figure out my answer to this question was due to some of the applicable information from the Cantwell v. State of Connecticut case. Mr.Justice Roberts explains in the opinion of the court, “The act requires an application to the secretary of the public welfare council of the State; that he is empowered to determine whether the cause is a religious one…” and “Such censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the first amendment”. This demonstrates that civil magistrates should not be able to declare the sincerity of religion. This could apply to the Miller v. City of Burien case in a situation where a religious group applies for a temporary permit and is at the feet of a civil magistrate to decide if they can exercise their religion. Also, there is a risk of establishment if certain religions are given permits to use their property for some form of free exercise whilst others are not. Regardless of these details, I have come to believe that the constitutional rights of the Burien Methodist Church are not being violated. The municipal code is intended to ensure that property is being used in ways that will not threaten the safety and peace of their residents. The church was not prevented from exercising its religious obligations by any means. They were simply asked to apply for a permit that was ensured to be given to them because their intended use of the property had positive effects on the public.  I believe it is within the city’s jurisdiction to oversee and have some control over the usage of the property. Imagine the church was hosting the encampment of registered sex offenders on the basis of religious obligation. The government must be able to restrict this activity for the “peace and good order” of society. Government authority is necessary for the protection of people and truly no individual's right of free exercise is being infringed by this law.

LA Lifeguard Stands up for Religious Rights in the Workplace

    Over time, we’ve seen a continuing legal debate regarding the balance between religious freedom and workplace policies. The case of Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department provides us with a unique example of the tensions that may occur from this debate. Captain Jeffrey Little is a lifeguard and evangelical Christian, and argues that the county violated his religious freedom by forcing him to be involved in raising the Progress Pride Flag despite his strong religious beliefs. This case raises numerous important questions regarding what length public employers should go to accommodate religious beliefs. Additionally, it causes us to question why protecting those beliefs is crucial to the constitutional right of free exercise.

    In June 2023, Los Angeles County required all county facilities, including lifeguard stations, to fly the Progress Pride Flag during Pride Month. Captain Little asked to be given religious accommodation, explaining that his Christian faith had instilled in him that same sex relationships and non binary identities do not align with his beliefs. Initially, his supervisors agreed to accommodate him by assigning him to work at locations without flagpoles. However, they later took away this accommodation and insisted that he must be present for the raising of the flag at his work, even if he did not physically raise it himself.

    Little ultimately retaliated, arguing that even managing others who raised the flag would breach his religious beliefs and freedoms. As a result of this, he faced consequences, such as being reassigned, criticized, and allegedly harassed. After this had occurred, Little filed a lawsuit, claiming that his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were violated.

    The main legal question that it raised is whether Los Angeles County’s actions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. This clause protects one’s rights to practice their religion without facing any interference from the government. According to past cases like Sherbert v. Verner and Employment Division v. Smith, the government can only restrict religious freedom if it has an actual compelling reason to do so and the restriction is the option that comes with the least burden.

    Little argues that the county didn’t have a valid enough reason to deny his accommodation. He believes that allowing him to remain unaffiliated with the flag would not present any harm to the county’s mission nor would it lead to chaos in the workplace. On the other hand, the county argues that ensuring all employees follow the flag policy is an essential aspect in promoting diversity and inclusion.

    Another key question raised is whether the county’s policy is a neutral rule that applies equally to everyone or whether it unfairly targets people with religious objections. The court allowed certain parts of Little’s case to proceed, demonstrating that there’s enough evidence to explore whether the county showed any bias toward his religious beliefs.

    Captain Little’s case goes beyond solely one man’s objection to a flag. It’s about protecting the principle that the government cannot force people to act against their religious beliefs unless it is completely necessary. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect religious practices in private spaces like churches, it applies in the workplace too. This especially applies when public employees like Little face policies that conflict with their faith.

    One of the primary points in Little’s favor is that his accommodation request didn’t prevent the county from flying the Progress Pride Flag. He wasn’t asking to stop the flag from being displayed altogether. Rather, he simply seeked an exemption from playing an active role participating in or managing the process. It would have been quite easy for the county to reassign him or find another way to meet its policy goals having Little be directly involved. By taking away his accommodation and punishing him for his religious stance, the county ultimately created a burden on his free exercise of religion that was unnecessary in the end.

    Additionally, this case could set a dangerous precedent. In class we have discussed the idea of a “slippery slope,” where granting one religious exemption could lead to an obligation for courts to provide similar exemptions for cases in the future. However, that logic should work both ways. If the court sides with the county, it could reveal that public employees must comply with every workplace policy, even when those policies conflict with their religious beliefs. This would weaken the protections that come with the Free Exercise Clause and create a terribly negative effect, as it would not allow individuals to seek accommodations without having a fear of retaliation or job loss.

    If Little comes out with a victory in this case, we can be reassured that religious freedom in public workplaces will remain protected. Additionally, it would remind employers that accommodations that are within reason are absolutely required under both the First Amendment and Title VII. For a very long time, courts have recognized that religious beliefs deserve respect, and this case would emphasize that public institutions must think carefully about providing accommodations prior to placing burdens on one’s faith.

    On the other hand, a ruling against Little could make it much more difficult for employees to receive accommodations, especially in situations that involve symbolic gestures such as flags. The effect of this would be extremely unfavorable, where people feel they must suppress their beliefs to keep their jobs.

    All in all, Captain Little’s case is an example that provides us with insight into how far public employers can go in enforcing workplace policies when those policies clash with religious beliefs. Without a compelling reason otherwise, individuals are protected from being forced to act against their faith under the constitution. In this case, the county had other ways to meet its goals without involving Little, and it refusing to respect his beliefs goes against the entire concept of religious freedom. By standing up for his rights, Little is defending his own beliefs while also protecting others from having to decide between their job and faith.

Sources:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-06/christian-lifeguard-doesnt-have-to-raise-the-pride-flag-but-objects-to-making-subordinates-do-it#:~:text=The%20lawsuit%2C%20filed%20by%20longtime,a%20Pride%20flag%20last%20summer.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/01/lifeguard-who-has-religious-objections.html

https://californiaglobe.com/fr/christian-lifeguard-sues-l-a-county-fire-department-for-religious-discrimination-over-pride-flag/