City officials in a Philadelphia suburb recently cited a local church food ministry for a zoning violation.
The story highlights the kinds of threats that religious liberty can face at the local level.
Watch this video to learn more.
Public officials in the Philadelphia suburb of Pottstown, Pennsylvania, recently issued a citation against two churches operating ministries in their community.
NPR affiliate WHYY reports that the churches were cited for violating the city’s zoning code by offering free meals and providing mental health services.
The Pottstown Zoning Officer reportedly cited an Episcopal church and a United Methodist church for the violations.
“Violations” listed on the citation include:
The citation draws from the city zoning code that defines a church as “A building wherein persons assemble regularly for religious worship and that is used only for such purposes and for those accessory activities as are customarily associated therewith.”
The citation gave the ministries 30 days to apply for a zoning permit with the city or cease and desist these services.
If the churches failed to do so, they could be fined up to $500. The Episcopal News Service reports that the churches do not intend to stop the programs or apply for additional permits.
Churches should not be threatened with fines simply for giving food and basic necessities to the needy.
Stories like this one underscore why it is so important for states to safeguard the free exercise of religion.
In 2016 the Arkansas Department of Health told a Carroll County food ministry that it could not serve soup to the homeless unless the soup was “prepared in an institutional kitchen and served in the same building.”
Fortunately, a religious freedom restoration law the Arkansas Legislature passed in 2015 helped protect that ministry.
Last year the Arkansas Legislature voted to place the Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment on the 2022 ballot. If passed, it would enshrine many of the same religious liberty protections from the 2015 law into the Arkansas Constitution.
You Can Learn More About the Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment Here.
The following is a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom.
Tuesday, Jun 21, 2022
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in Carson v. Makin that the state of Maine cannot exclude students who attend religious schools from a government program in which they are otherwise qualified. Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom and Jones Day had argued for that result in a friend-of-the-court brief they filed on behalf of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.
Maine had prohibited families from using funds from a state tuition program—designed for students who don’t have access to a local public school—at private religious schools that incorporated a curricular faith perspective.
“When the government offers parents school choice, it can’t take away choices that are deemed ‘too religious’ or withhold funds from those who choose religious schools when the state offers those funds to everybody else,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch. “Today’s decision from the Supreme Court affirms our country’s abiding principle of religious liberty and, importantly, allows Maine parents the freedom to send their children to schools that align with their beliefs.”
The Supreme Court’s decision built upon its previous rulings in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, a case in which ADF attorneys successfully argued before the high court that a state may not discriminate against a religious school in awarding grants to improve playground safety.
“Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause,” the high court concluded, emphasizing that this does not mean that a state “must” fund religious education. “But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” And this is true no matter whether the state disqualifies a school because of its religious status or because the school integrates religion into its curriculum. “Any attempt to give effect to such a distinction by scrutinizing whether and how a religious school pursues its educational mission would also raise serious concerns about state entanglement with religion and denominational favoritism.”
ADF attorneys are currently litigating similar cases involving Vermont officials discriminating against religious schools in E.W. v. French, A.M. v. French, and A.H. v. French. Jones Day attorneys Yaakov M. Roth, Anthony J. Dick, and Meredith Holland Kessler served as co-counsel for the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty.
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.
# # #
