Laserfiche WebLink
C <br />8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:189 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />following words of Jesus Christ: `For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I <br />was thirsty and you gave me something to drink.' .... (Matthew 25:35-40)." Id. ¶4. <br />Indeed, MW "takes great solace in the fact that providing charitable assistance to persons <br />in need is a practice that is embraced by every major religion in the world," and MW <br />believes it is doing "God's work" by "providing food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, <br />clothing to the needy, and shelter to the homeless." Id. 142. <br />This type of faith -based outreach is akin to Harbor Missionary Church Corp, <br />where the Ninth Circuit found that a city's denial of a conditional use permit, which <br />prevented the plaintiff "from conducting its homeless ministry, an integral part of its <br />religion," violated RLUIPA's substantial burden provision. 642 Fed. App'x at 729. <br />Similar to MW, the Church in Harbor Missionary used its property to provide "basic <br />needs to the City's homeless men and women," such as food, clothing, showers, and <br />counseling. Id. at 727. The Church cited "the Bible at Matthew 25:34-46" as a source <br />for its "belief that its homeless ministry is part of its religious duty to feed the hungry <br />and clothe the naked," and that "sharing meals with homeless men and women —when <br />done within the walls of the Church under a religious mandate—constitute[d] sacred <br />duties." Id. at 728-29. MW's religious beliefs are similarly rooted in religious text. <br />Compl. 1�4, 25. And like Harbor Missionary, MW's practice of distributing food and <br />beverages to people in need is an act of religious exercise. <br />The City claims that MW's food and drink distribution is not religious exercise <br />because it is "merely an incidental use of minor significance." Mot. at 10 (emphasis <br />added). But MW's Complaint makes clear that food and drink distribution is an integral <br />part of its religious exercise and not of "minor significance." Compl. 114, 27, 42. <br />Moreover, the City's argument runs counter to the plain language of RLUIPA, which <br />protects any religious exercise, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of <br />religious belief." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) . In other words, the centrality or <br />significance of the belief or conduct at issue does not dictate whether it is "religious <br />exercise" under RLUIPA. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 725 n.13 (noting that RLUIPA "bars <br />9 <br />