Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A woman who feeds the homeless in San Antonio has been fined $2000, and will use the 1999 Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act as her defense in court. If this flies then the RFRA can be used to defend oneself from just about any city ordinance.
Joan Cheever said that police ticketed her last week for distributing food from a vehicle other than the food truck she normally operates. The fine was a total of $2,000.
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.
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE CHAPTER 110. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
(1) "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief.
Sec. 110.003. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTED. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion.
Sec. 110.004. DEFENSE. A person whose free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened in violation of Section 110.003 may assert that violation as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person.
I find it difficult to believe there are any documented religious doctrines that urge believers to build on easements, build homes with substandard wiring, urinate on the sidewalk or any number of other city ordinances.
I find it difficult to believe there are any documented religious doctrines that urge believers to build on easements, build homes with substandard wiring, urinate on the sidewalk or any number of other city ordinances.
"If this flies then the RFRA can be used to defend oneself from just about any city ordinance."
Well, then it's probably doomed to failure. They can't have that, can they. I wish her luck though. I have some catering business friends who will occasionally hand out stuff. They just make sure nobody is watching.
I find it difficult to believe there are any documented religious doctrines that urge believers to build on easements, build homes with substandard wiring, urinate on the sidewalk or any number of other city ordinances.
There aren't any documented religious doctrines that urge believers to refuse to sell cakes to gay people, but people still claim that their religious doctrines do just that. People are bending themselves into pretzels to rationalize the bigotry they want to engage in. I don't put anything past their craven nature. If they're willing to do it victimizing other people, then they'll surely be willing to do it in the kind of circumstances you outlined, which they would claim are truly victimless.
She will likely lose....but maybe the judge will have a little discretion and suspend the fine because of the context in how she violated the ordinance.
Quote:
Sec. 110.003. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTED. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the government agency demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(c) A government agency that makes the demonstration required by Subsection (b) is not required to separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the law, ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority that imposes the substantial burden are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply.
There is a real concern of public health issues when it comes to food handling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
