More: GRM is a Christian ministry that requires all residents to work for them without pay for "six hours a day, six days a week in exchange for a bunk for 30 days." They also cannot look for outside work during that month. That's not all though. They must also attend church every Sunday (from a pre-approved list); Unitarian services are not acceptable. And they have to attend a chapel service twice a day. And they can't smoke or drink. And they can't have sex during their stay.

What if you're disabled or have medical or mental health problems that prevent you from attending church? What if you aren't Christian? What if you just don't want to participate in the religious activities? Too bad. You can't stay at their shelter.

That's why the plaintiffs argued they had no realistic options in the city.

In their brief supporting the city, they argued that the city's inability to punish the homeless (because of earlier court decisions) "has significantly decreased the number of people who access the Mission's services," as if that's a bad thing.

Municipal public safety laws are a crucial tool in helping the homeless take advantage of available safe shelter resources. Taking away cities' power to enforce those laws, as the Ninth Circuit has done here, does not benefit the homeless as that court evidently hoped. Instead, it has only hindered the efforts of those in Grants Pass who devote each day to bettering the lives of those facing homelessness.

They're calling for the city to fine and jail the homeless in the hopes that they become the only alternative for anyone seeking to avoid punishment. When you see yourself as the antidote, you start to root for poison.

It's telling that there's literally zero mention of "God" anywhere in the brief"which is rather unusual for a Christian group making an argument to the Supreme Court. Especially this Supreme Court. The argument isn't a religious one because how could it be? The ministry says they have beds available, but for various reasons, many of them are going unused. They must know how bad it would look to justify the cruelty against the homeless using the language of faith. Yet they seem blissfully unaware of how their own religious restrictions may play a significant role in why people with no other options still don't want to ask them for help.

It also raises additional questions, as Nye writes:

It may be well-intentioned, but GRM's plea raises serious legal and theological questions. If the Rescue Mission"the only option in town"can shelter just 138 people, how can the government criminalize all 1,200 people experiencing homelessness in the city? Do Christian organizations have a theological mandate, or even a justification, for forcing religious programming in exchange for shelter and care? Can the government compel homeless people to stay at a shelter that has strict religious requirements without infringing further on their constitutional rights?

The Christian shelter isn't, and cannot be, the city's only viable option here. The long-term solutions have to involve mental health care, addiction specialists, affordable housing, and secular shelters, not just banishing people from the city. But right now, the city isn't giving homeless people secular, safe places to stay. Instead, Grants Pass is arguing that the options provided are more than enough and the only alternative is to further punish people who are already struggling to survive, making it that much harder for them to get back up on their feet.

It's completely insane logic. And the one Christian ministry directly involved in the case is going all in on the side of More Cruelty.