Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Good News Break: It's Now Legal to Feed Poor People in Orlando

by Alan Clapsaddle 10-01-2008 | 2:56pm
Print
10 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory A. Presnell struck down the City of Orlando's "Large Group Feeding Ordinance." The ordinance had been enacted to try to move groups of homeless people out of downtown. This, in effect, criminalized the actions of First Vagabonds Church of God holding worship services and food sharing on Sundays and Orlando Food Not Bombs (OFNB) which holds food sharings on Monday and Wednesday.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

The Orlando Police Department made seven arrests of Orlando Food Not Bombs members who were allegedly violating or protesting the ordinance. (All were subsequently acquitted in jury trials.) These actions had the chilling effect of driving away most other churches and groups who were sharing food in the parks, since they were afraid of being labeled as "law breakers."

In the court's landmark ruling, for the first time the Federal Court has explicitly recognized sharing food as expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. The court found "the restrictions clearly prevent OFNB from communicating its Constitutionally protected speech at a meaningful location [the public square] which, from time immemorial, has been the traditional public forum for free speech."

The court further found that the ordinance had "no rational basis," "more than incidentally burdened (Pastor) Nichols' congregation," and violated the First Amendment rights of Pastor Nichols and First Vagabonds Church of God.

The Orlando Sentinel quotes Orlando City Attorney Mayanne Downs as saying that "city officials hope to sit down with homeless advocates." That would be a first, as heretofore the mayor and his senior staff have refused to meet with OFNB and First Vagabonds Church of God and local clergy who had opposed the ordinance. Some other local clergy, who depend on the good graces of the city for funding and support, had written letters supporting the ordinance, eerily reminiscent of the "Call for Unity" letter written by Alabama clergy in 1963, that prompted Dr. Martin Luther King to write his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail."

To read the full text of the court's ruling or learn more about the issues visit www.poorinorlando.com or www.la2w.org.

Rev. Alan Clapsaddle is a social justice advocate and blogger in Orlando, working with the National Homeless Coalition and LA2W.org. Alan serves at First UCC Church of Orlando.

10 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: nuclearferret

10-01-2008 @ 5:48pm

Orlando is the pits for dealing with homeless persons. "Homeless advocates" led a movement to erect a massive shelter/detention center to have homeless persons sleep on the ground as a way of keeping those people out of public places where the precious tourists might actually see some of them. Perhaps it is better than being under a bridge; not better than having smaller facilities that could actually deal with people as people instead of like cattle in a barn. So that the city would take that effort and progress towards banning food programs should be of little surprise. Its about time the churches and folks who are supposed to help homeless persons represent themselves used their backbone. Good for them!

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-01-2008 @ 8:13pm

"In the court's landmark ruling, for the first time the Federal Court has explicitly recognized sharing food as expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. The court found 'the restrictions clearly prevent OFNB from communicating its Constitutionally protected speech at a meaningful location [the public square] which, from time immemorial, has been the traditional public forum for free speech.'"

In other words, the district court ruling was based on the novel theory that distributing food is a form of speech. Don't be surprised if this is appealed and overturned.

LV

by: sunjustice

10-05-2008 @ 10:56am

As the pastor of the first vagabonds chuech of god i would just like to say that we have always been willing to work out a sensible solution the cities idea of a solution was a cage topprd wiyh barbed wire, the fed judge called it nothing but a ghetto alternative, and said it was totally unsuitable, as far as whether or not the city will appeal they hate ofnbs and it is probably cheaper to appeal than it is to pay the legal fees and damages. even though they haven't got a leg to stand on, appealling it will stall the payments of fees. that they have 2 first ammendment issues to fight in a higher court even if say they reverse the decision on free speech my claim on the free exercise of religion would more than likelyhold up' the mayor of orlando himself testified (thinking he was showing a concern for the homelesss) that he absolutely knew that fnbs did it for political reasons thus thier message as expressed was understood.i dont think any courtwill not except that free speach is being done the city would have to prove that the ordinance was necasary for important govt interest. with the evidence available they cant because there never really was any

by: RJohnson64

10-02-2008 @ 1:42pm

LV, you are probably correct. It's unfortunate, but the rationale is rather weak from a legal standpoint. What is needed is for the churches and activists to push the city council into repealing this law, or modifying it to permit their activities.

Or, better yet, to have them actually assist in providing more shelters for the feeding and care of the homeless. But that is probably too much to expect.

by: sunjustice

10-05-2008 @ 10:56am

As the pastor of the first vagabonds chuech of god i would just like to say that we have always been willing to work out a sensible solution the cities idea of a solution was a cage topprd wiyh barbed wire, the fed judge called it nothing but a ghetto alternative, and said it was totally unsuitable, as far as whether or not the city will appeal they hate ofnbs and it is probably cheaper to appeal than it is to pay the legal fees and damages. even though they haven't got a leg to stand on, appealling it will stall the payments of fees. that they have 2 first ammendment issues to fight in a higher court even if say they reverse the decision on free speech my claim on the free exercise of religion would more than likelyhold up' the mayor of orlando himself testified (thinking he was showing a concern for the homelesss) that he absolutely knew that fnbs did it for political reasons thus thier message as expressed was understood.i dont think any courtwill not except that free speach is being done the city would have to prove that the ordinance was necasary for important govt interest. with the evidence available they cant because there never really was any

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2008 @ 4:07pm

I just love the name of that church: First Vagabonds Church of God!

The name takes seriously the Scriptures that teach us that we are strangers and sojourners here, e.g., Hebrews 13:14.

Peace,

by: nuclearferret

10-01-2008 @ 5:48pm

Orlando is the pits for dealing with homeless persons. "Homeless advocates" led a movement to erect a massive shelter/detention center to have homeless persons sleep on the ground as a way of keeping those people out of public places where the precious tourists might actually see some of them. Perhaps it is better than being under a bridge; not better than having smaller facilities that could actually deal with people as people instead of like cattle in a barn. So that the city would take that effort and progress towards banning food programs should be of little surprise. Its about time the churches and folks who are supposed to help homeless persons represent themselves used their backbone. Good for them!

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-01-2008 @ 8:13pm

"In the court's landmark ruling, for the first time the Federal Court has explicitly recognized sharing food as expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. The court found 'the restrictions clearly prevent OFNB from communicating its Constitutionally protected speech at a meaningful location [the public square] which, from time immemorial, has been the traditional public forum for free speech.'"

In other words, the district court ruling was based on the novel theory that distributing food is a form of speech. Don't be surprised if this is appealed and overturned.

LV

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2008 @ 4:07pm

I just love the name of that church: First Vagabonds Church of God!

The name takes seriously the Scriptures that teach us that we are strangers and sojourners here, e.g., Hebrews 13:14.

Peace,

by: RJohnson64

10-02-2008 @ 1:42pm

LV, you are probably correct. It's unfortunate, but the rationale is rather weak from a legal standpoint. What is needed is for the churches and activists to push the city council into repealing this law, or modifying it to permit their activities.

Or, better yet, to have them actually assist in providing more shelters for the feeding and care of the homeless. But that is probably too much to expect.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2008 @ 4:07pm

I just love the name of that church: First Vagabonds Church of God!

The name takes seriously the Scriptures that teach us that we are strangers and sojourners here, e.g., Hebrews 13:14.

Peace,

by: BuckeyeDon

10-01-2008 @ 4:07pm

I just love the name of that church: First Vagabonds Church of God!

The name takes seriously the Scriptures that teach us that we are strangers and sojourners here, e.g., Hebrews 13:14.

Peace,

by: nuclearferret

10-01-2008 @ 5:48pm

Orlando is the pits for dealing with homeless persons. "Homeless advocates" led a movement to erect a massive shelter/detention center to have homeless persons sleep on the ground as a way of keeping those people out of public places where the precious tourists might actually see some of them. Perhaps it is better than being under a bridge; not better than having smaller facilities that could actually deal with people as people instead of like cattle in a barn. So that the city would take that effort and progress towards banning food programs should be of little surprise. Its about time the churches and folks who are supposed to help homeless persons represent themselves used their backbone. Good for them!

by: nuclearferret

10-01-2008 @ 5:48pm

Orlando is the pits for dealing with homeless persons. "Homeless advocates" led a movement to erect a massive shelter/detention center to have homeless persons sleep on the ground as a way of keeping those people out of public places where the precious tourists might actually see some of them. Perhaps it is better than being under a bridge; not better than having smaller facilities that could actually deal with people as people instead of like cattle in a barn. So that the city would take that effort and progress towards banning food programs should be of little surprise. Its about time the churches and folks who are supposed to help homeless persons represent themselves used their backbone. Good for them!

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-01-2008 @ 8:13pm

"In the court's landmark ruling, for the first time the Federal Court has explicitly recognized sharing food as expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. The court found 'the restrictions clearly prevent OFNB from communicating its Constitutionally protected speech at a meaningful location [the public square] which, from time immemorial, has been the traditional public forum for free speech.'"

In other words, the district court ruling was based on the novel theory that distributing food is a form of speech. Don't be surprised if this is appealed and overturned.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

10-01-2008 @ 8:13pm

"In the court's landmark ruling, for the first time the Federal Court has explicitly recognized sharing food as expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. The court found 'the restrictions clearly prevent OFNB from communicating its Constitutionally protected speech at a meaningful location [the public square] which, from time immemorial, has been the traditional public forum for free speech.'"

In other words, the district court ruling was based on the novel theory that distributing food is a form of speech. Don't be surprised if this is appealed and overturned.

LV

by: RJohnson64

10-02-2008 @ 1:42pm

LV, you are probably correct. It's unfortunate, but the rationale is rather weak from a legal standpoint. What is needed is for the churches and activists to push the city council into repealing this law, or modifying it to permit their activities.

Or, better yet, to have them actually assist in providing more shelters for the feeding and care of the homeless. But that is probably too much to expect.

by: RJohnson64

10-02-2008 @ 1:42pm

LV, you are probably correct. It's unfortunate, but the rationale is rather weak from a legal standpoint. What is needed is for the churches and activists to push the city council into repealing this law, or modifying it to permit their activities.

Or, better yet, to have them actually assist in providing more shelters for the feeding and care of the homeless. But that is probably too much to expect.

by: sunjustice

10-05-2008 @ 10:56am

As the pastor of the first vagabonds chuech of god i would just like to say that we have always been willing to work out a sensible solution the cities idea of a solution was a cage topprd wiyh barbed wire, the fed judge called it nothing but a ghetto alternative, and said it was totally unsuitable, as far as whether or not the city will appeal they hate ofnbs and it is probably cheaper to appeal than it is to pay the legal fees and damages. even though they haven't got a leg to stand on, appealling it will stall the payments of fees. that they have 2 first ammendment issues to fight in a higher court even if say they reverse the decision on free speech my claim on the free exercise of religion would more than likelyhold up' the mayor of orlando himself testified (thinking he was showing a concern for the homelesss) that he absolutely knew that fnbs did it for political reasons thus thier message as expressed was understood.i dont think any courtwill not except that free speach is being done the city would have to prove that the ordinance was necasary for important govt interest. with the evidence available they cant because there never really was any

by: sunjustice

10-05-2008 @ 10:56am

As the pastor of the first vagabonds chuech of god i would just like to say that we have always been willing to work out a sensible solution the cities idea of a solution was a cage topprd wiyh barbed wire, the fed judge called it nothing but a ghetto alternative, and said it was totally unsuitable, as far as whether or not the city will appeal they hate ofnbs and it is probably cheaper to appeal than it is to pay the legal fees and damages. even though they haven't got a leg to stand on, appealling it will stall the payments of fees. that they have 2 first ammendment issues to fight in a higher court even if say they reverse the decision on free speech my claim on the free exercise of religion would more than likelyhold up' the mayor of orlando himself testified (thinking he was showing a concern for the homelesss) that he absolutely knew that fnbs did it for political reasons thus thier message as expressed was understood.i dont think any courtwill not except that free speach is being done the city would have to prove that the ordinance was necasary for important govt interest. with the evidence available they cant because there never really was any