Should feeding the homeless be illegal? That’s the question at the heart of a heated debate in downtown Phoenix. CrossRoads United Methodist Church has been feeding the poor for years now, but since it started providing food in its building, a serious issue has arisen.

The building is zoned for residential use. The residential area in question was also recently the scene of a violent altercation between two homeless men. One man was stabbed in the leg. Now, the Arizona Supreme Court decided the church’s pancake breakfasts are violations of city zoning ordinances, as so-called “charity dining halls” are considered businesses and are therefore not allowed to operate in residential areas.

CrossRoads is expected to appeal the decision, but until then, the court has set a dangerous precedent. This is not the only church in the area handing out food to those less fortunate. Grace Lutheran Church in downtown Phoenix serves as many as 400 homeless people at its free weekly pancake breakfast, as do other area churches and organizations. It’s one of many churches in the state that could have its feeding programs terminated by this court action. It could also stifle efforts by Flagstaff churches to offer more to the local homeless population.

We have to ask ourselves whether this is the kind of behavior the government should be punishing. What is so wrong with doing a good deed? Shouldn’t somebody be doing something to help the homeless population in our inner cities?

Without some charity for the homeless, the already wretched conditions they live in will only  continue to deteriorate. We can’t leave it up to the general public to serve their needs. If an organization has the courage to declare the homeless as people with certain rights, then — in my opinion — these efforts to help them should be allowed to continue; and others around the state, especially in Flagstaff, should follow the example.

Perhaps the most important question we should be asking of the Arizona Supreme Court is whether or not the courts have the power to restrict the rights of a religious organization under the First Amendment. This goes further than just one church handing out pancakes on Sunday mornings. This gets to the struggle between government and religion, between our fundamental freedoms and preserving social order.

However, the appeals court would be wise to re-evaluate the decision to ban CrossRoads United Methodist from providing food to the homeless. After all, if the neighborhood churches can’t feed the poor, then who will?