Ohio pastor arraigned after being charged for housing homeless at church

[Vambram]

Ohio pastor arraigned after being charged for housing homeless at church

An Ohio pastor was arraigned in municipal court on Thursday after being slapped with 18 zoning law violation charges related to keeping his church open around the clock to house the homeless

www.christianpost.com

An Ohio pastor was arraigned in municipal court on Thursday after being slapped with 18 zoning law violation charges related to keeping his church open around the clock to house the homeless.

Pastor Chris Avell, who pastors the nondenominational Dad's Place in Bryan, which is a town of around 8,400 people about 50 miles southwest of Toledo, pleaded not guilty to the charges, his attorney told The Christian Post.

“Yesterday, the city of Bryan, Ohio, arraigned Pastor Chris on criminal charges for having his church open 24/7," Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, told CP. "He pled 'not guilty,' as any pastor should who is simply doing what churches throughout history have done: care for those who walk through their doors no matter the time of day."

"We hope Mayor Carrie Schlade will drop all of these charges and begin talking with us about how Pastor Chris and Dad’s Place will continue to contribute to the wonderful community of Bryan," he added.

 

[Occams Barber]

A court filing states that because Dad's Place is zoned as Central Business, the building is prohibited from allowing people to eat, wash clothes, or sleep on the property.

Ohio pastor arraigned after being charged for housing homeless at church

An Ohio pastor was arraigned in municipal court on Thursday after being slapped with 18 zoning law violation charges related to keeping his church open around the clock to house the homeless

www.christianpost.com

The other side of the argument from the same article.

Who's to blame if the church catches fire and homeless people die?

The release signed by Ruskey cited legal precedent in state law "supporting [that] religious organizations cannot create homeless shelters within their property that violate local zoning codes."​

​

Ruskey's statement also alleged that there were "numerous State Fire Code violations that the tenant and property owner were made aware of."​

​

"A reasonable amount of time was given for both the tenant and property owner to fix the issues. Due to the safety of all involved the city moved forward with filing charges," the statement also said.​

​

OB​

 

[FireDragon76]

We have homeless people sleeping at our church sometimes. The lawyer is right, churches have done this throughout history and this case is not exceptional.

A church should be a place of sanctuary. Especially for the poor.

"Whoever is kind to a poor man, loans to the Lord, and the Lord will repay him". Proverbs 19:17

 

[Hazelelponi]

Just a heads up, but if you try and feed the homeless they can arrest you for it too. .

They create homeless, then won't let anyone help them, then they claim you have to vote for them again to fix the problem they created.

It's ridiculous.

I know there's more considerations perhaps to giving people a warm place to sleep than in the making of a peanut butter sandwich, but I'm thinking in the middle of the worst nights on earth when people would die if they were outdoors, the practice of my faith has to win out over the law...

Good on this church for trying!

 

[A2SG]

Just a heads up, but if you try and feed the homeless they can arrest you for it too. .

They create homeless, then won't let anyone help them, then they claim you have to vote for them again to fix the problem they created.

It's ridiculous.

I know there's more considerations perhaps to giving people a warm place to sleep than in the making of a peanut butter sandwich, but I'm thinking in the middle of the worst nights on earth when people would die if they were outdoors, the practice of my faith has to win out over the law...

Good on this church for trying!

From the article in the OP:

City Police Chief Gregory Ruskey, who forwarded a Dec. 13 press release from the police department explaining that the city's zoning and engineering department "received a complaint in regards to people living" at Dad's Place on Nov. 3.

A court filing states that because Dad's Place is zoned as Central Business, the building is prohibited from allowing people to eat, wash clothes, or sleep on the property.

The release signed by Ruskey cited legal precedent in state law "supporting [that] religious organizations cannot create homeless shelters within their property that violate local zoning codes."

Ruskey's statement also alleged that there were "numerous State Fire Code violations that the tenant and property owner were made aware of."

"A reasonable amount of time was given for both the tenant and property owner to fix the issues. Due to the safety of all involved the city moved forward with filing charges," the statement also said.

Just a part of the story that may have been missed by some.

Seems to me, finding another more suitable place to house these people would have been a better solution, and would have avoided this entire issue. Then again, there's be no story to stoke the flames of outrage over, would there?

-- A2SG, or is that what it's all about?

 

[FireDragon76]

From the article in the OP:

Just a part of the story that may have been missed by some.

Seems to me, finding another more suitable place to house these people would have been a better solution, and would have avoided this entire issue. Then again, there's be no story to stoke the flames of outrage over, would there?

-- A2SG, or is that what it's all about?

A church is a suitable place. It's true that society should find better solutions to homelessness as a matter of justice, but something that ought to define Christianity is care for the poor as a religious obligation, regardless of what the wider society does.

 

[A2SG]

A church is a suitable place.

Not according to the zoning laws where it is.

It's true that society should find better solutions to homelessness as a matter of justice, but something that ought to define Christianity is care for the poor as a religious obligation, regardless of what the wider society does.

I didn't see anyone objecting to Christians caring for the poor or the homeless, just that the place they chose to do so wasn't suitable for that purpose. Complaints were received, and they were warned about that unsuitability, and given time to find a different place to house those they were caring for.

Seems reasonable to me. The church, after all that, chose not to comply.

Churches are given a lot of latitude in the US, what with tax-exempt status and all that...surely they could have found a better place to care for the homeless than somewhere that wasn't suitable for that purpose.

-- A2SG, perhaps some of the christians who are up in arms about this issue could have helped somehow, instead of drumming up outrage in the press....just a thought....

 

[FireDragon76]

Not according to the zoning laws where it is.


I didn't see anyone objecting to Christians caring for the poor or the homeless, just that the place they chose to do so wasn't suitable for that purpose. Complaints were received, and they were warned about that unsuitability, and given time to find a different place to house those they were caring for.

Seems reasonable to me. The church, after all that, chose not to comply.

Churches are given a lot of latitude in the US, what with tax-exempt status and all that...surely they could have found a better place to care for the homeless than somewhere that wasn't suitable for that purpose.

-- A2SG, perhaps some of the christians who are up in arms about this issue could have helped somehow, instead of drumming up outrage in the press....just a thought....

You may not appreciate the role of religious institutions in society, but under the US Constitution, the State doesn't have the authority to interfere in the free exercise of religion.

Since ancient times, people have sought out churches looking for help or shelter. It's not extraordinary, it's normal, and it's part of the practice of the religion.

 

[A2SG]

You may not appreciate the role of religious institutions in society, but under the US Constitution, the State doesn't have the authority to interfere in the free exercise of religion.

I know. And they didn't do that in this case.

-- A2SG, they just enforced the laws of the community the church was located in...churches aren't above the law, are they?

 

[FireDragon76]

I know. And they didn't do that in this case.

Yes, they did.

You may not be aware, but you're talking about something that's fundamental l to Christian ethics, the practice of hospitality and concern for the poor. A Christian is not at liberty to disregard those things in the name of zoning laws, which are often steeped in prejudice against the poor. It's a matter of justice... and I find it hard to see why you don't understand that, unless you yourself have prejudice against the homeless. They are guests of the church and seeking sanctuary, and the State has no right to decide who gets to be a guest of the church.

 

[Desk trauma]

You may not appreciate the role of religious institutions in society, but under the US Constitution, the State doesn't have the authority to interfere in the free exercise of religion.

Since ancient times, people have sought out churches looking for help or shelter. It's not extraordinary, it's normal, and it's part of the practice of the religion.

Ok, add zoning laws to the list of things that Christians get to ignore because they believe really hard that they should not have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok, add zoning laws to the list of things that Christians get to ignore because they believe really hard that they should not have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Zoning laws cannot be used to discriminate against the practice of religion.

I am a lifelong Democrat and not a member of the Religious Right on board with a victimhood narrative of white Evangelicals. I attend a Congregationalist church (UCC), one of the most liberal and racially diverse denominations in the US. This is still something that is non-negotiable for us. Everyone is welcome at our church, especially the homeless.

And this isn't a concern restricted to just Christians. I know Sikhs and Muslims have similar religious obligations about their places of worship. This potentially affects all Americans' rights to practice their religion.

 

[A2SG]

Yes, they did.

You may not be aware, but you're talking about something that's fundamental l to Christian ethics, the practice of hospitality and concern for the poor. A Christian is not at liberty to disregard those things in the name of zoning laws, which are often steeped in prejudice against the poor. It's a matter of justice... and I find it hard to see why you don't understand that, unless you yourself have prejudice against the homeless. They are guests of the church and seeking sanctuary, and the State has no right to decide who gets to be a guest of the church.

No one is stopping any Christian from opening their home to any of those homeless people. The only limitation was the church building, specifically, as it isn't suitable for people to live in. Remember, the police were responding to complaints.

-- A2SG, the problem wasn't what they were doing, just where they were doing it....

 

[Desk trauma]

Zoning laws cannot be used to discriminate against the practice of religion.

Hence why they get to ignore all building codes, sanitation codes and occupancy regulations on their houses of worship.

I am a lifelong Democrat and not a member of the Religious Right on board with a victimhood narrative of white Evangelicals.

Yet still want special rights for theists.

And this isn't a concern restricted to just Christians. I know Sikhs and Muslims have similar religious obligations about their places of worship. This potentially affects all Americans' rights to practice their religion.

Yeah, all kinds of theists want to ignore the law because they believe really hard while us non-religious suckers have to abide by them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hence why they get to ignore all building codes, sanitation codes and occupancy regulations on their houses of worship.



Yet still want special rights for theists.

No, it has nothing to do with a particular religious creed. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. I would support the same freedoms for Unitarians and Ethical Societies, not just theists.

 

[FireDragon76]

According to the article, the pastor started housing people in the church because there was no alternative, the homeless shelter was overfilled. He doesn't sound like somebody that is indifferent to his community, quite the opposite.

As somebody that's a social progressive, I can tell you I am not a fan of most zoning laws, and how they are used. They have been used historically against minorities. That is the reality. Protesting a church for doing what churches have always done, despite the draconian enforcement of a zoning law, seems a curious hill to die on, if you fancy yourself a free-thinking person that values a tolerant and liberal society.

 

[Desk trauma]

No, it has nothing to do with a particular religious creed. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. I would support the same freedoms for Unitarians and Ethical Societies, not just theists.

A distinction without a difference. You want religious organizations to get to ignore laws the rest of us plebs have to follow.

 

[FireDragon76]

A distinction without a difference. You want religious organizations to get to ignore laws the rest of us plebs have to follow.

No... the same religious freedom applies to everyone equally. That you choose to exercise your freedom outside the bounds of a religious institution is your choice.

 

[Desk trauma]

No... the same religious freedom applies to everyone equally. That you choose to exercise your freedom outside the bounds of a religious institution is your choice.

Then non-religious organizations get to ignore laws because they believe really hard that they should not have to follow them as well?

 

[FireDragon76]

Then non-religious organizations get to ignore laws because they believe really hard that they should not have to follow them as well?

Freedom of religion applies to everyone equally. If an institution or business is not religious in nature, then it's hard to see how freedom of religion is relevant.

This has nothing to do with belief in God or lack thereof. There are institutions like Unitarian Universalist churches and Ethical Societies that don't require any kind of belief. They are still recognized under the Constitution as fundamentally religious in nature, since they operate in ways otherwise indistinguishable from religious institutions.