Back in November of 2009, churches in the City of Walker received a letter from Sue Richards, the Deputy City Clerk, which read in part:

We are asking all Churches to fill out the enclosed Business License Application Form.

There will be no charge.  We just need to have the information on record for emergency purposes.

Please fill out the enclosed form (as much as pertains to you) and return to us as soon as possible.  I have highlighted what I believe would be the only information we would need from you.

The Business License Application is a fairly standard, innocuous-looking, one-page document.  And I don't doubt that there exists reasonable cause for a government authority to require a commercial enterprise to have appropriate authority to operate as a self-contained entity (such as would be required of a corporation).  But I was compelled to scrounge up the definition of "license" in Black's Law Dictionary - the second edition is now in public domain - and see what I could learn.  Per Black's:

In the law of contracts:  A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.

Which compels me to ask:  What, exactly, would any church be doing - on its own property - that would be sufficiently illegal, trespassing, or tortuous that would require the City Licensing Officer (which, in Walker, is synonymous with the City Clerk) to require that church to obtain a license or permit in order to go about its ordinary activity?

Allegedly, the authority for the City Clerk to require these licenses is contained in Sections 22-2 and 22-6 of Walker's Municipal Code of Ordinances.  (Chapter 22 is the section dealing with Businesses; Article 1 deals with Business Licenses.)  Those two sections read:

Section 22-2:  Effective July 1, 2001 and at all times thereafter, no person shall commence or engage in a business within the city without first obtaining a license pursuant to this article and without maintaining such license in current effect during any business operation or activity.

Section 22-6:  The city license officer shall issue special permits, without the payment of any license fees or other charges therefor, to any person or organization for the conduct or operation of a nonprofit enterprise, either regularly or temporarily, when he or she finds that the applicant operates without private profit for a public, charitable, educational, literary, fraternal, or religious purpose.  An applicant for a special permit shall submit an application therefor to the city license officer and, when operating under a special permit, shall operate his enterprise in compliance with this article and all other applicable rules and regulations except as provided elsewhere in this article.

Now, again, this might seem like no big deal.  But think this through.  Essentially what is happening here is that the city is effectively requiring every church within its boundaries to submit to the authority of the local government, and by extension to the county, state, and federal governments.  Let's take a look at Section 22-11, Duties of Licensee; specifically subsection (a):

General standards of conduct.  Every licensee under this chapter shall:

(1) Permit all reasonable inspection of his business and examination of his books by public authorities so authorized by law;

(2) Ascertain and at all times comply with all laws, regulations, and ordinances applicable to such licensed business, including obtaining and maintaining any other licenses required by the City Code.

(3) Avoid all forbidden, improper, or unnecessary practices or conditions which do or may affect the public health, safety, or welfare;

(4) Refrain from operating the licensed businesses on premises after expiration of his license and during the period his license is revoked or suspended.

It's sub-sections (2) and (3) that ought to provide pause here, especially in light of such things as the initiative that was passed in Kalamazoo last November, 7,671 to 4,731 (City Ordnance 1856 - Kalamazoo Anti-Discrimination Ordinance).  Should something like that become law in Walker, would churches having business licenses be required to comply with such a law, even though their belief system holds homosexuality as a sin?  And before some troll makes this article a gay-rights issue, let me redirect the reader's attention back to the beginning of my piece . . . this is a constitutional issue about separation of church and state, which happens to be one of the ACLU's favorite lines of argument.

Perhaps an even more ominous cloud in this matter is Section 22-14, which provides for Enforcement, particularly sub-sections (a), (b), and (c) - quoting in part:

(a) Inspections.  The following persons are authorized to conduct inspections in the manner prescribed in this section:
(1) City license officer.  The city license officer shall make all investigations reasonably necessary for enforcement of this article.
(2)Officials having duties.  The city license officer shall have the authority to order the inspection of licensees, their businesses and premises, by all city officials having duties to perform with reference to such licensees or businesses.
(3) Police officers.  All police officers may inspect and examine businesses licensed pursuant to this article to enforce compliance with this article.

(b) Authority of inspectors.  All persons authorized by this section to inspect licensees and businesses shall have the authority to enter, with or without search warrant, during business hours and at other reasonable times, the following premises:
(1) Those for which a license is required;
(2) Those for which a license was issued and which, at the time of inspection, are operating under a license;
(3) Those for which the license has been revoked or suspended.

(c) Revocation of license.  When a person is in violation of this article or any other law or ordinance, the city license officer shall issue to the affected person an order to comply. . . .

So let me see if I've got this straight.  A church, operating under a business license or permit issued by the City of Walker, is subject to inspection - including examination of their books - by the City Clerk, city police, or any other miscellaneous official at the City Clerk's choosing . . . with or without a warrant!  Really?  Am I missing a clear violation of the 4th Amendment here?  Come on, what am I missing?

Oh, and don't skim over that "revocation of license" sub-section too quickly.  Merely violating a city ordinance is sufficient grounds for the City Clerk to take action to revoke the license or permit and cause the affected business (even if it's a non-profit or religious entity) to cease operations for a period of time that isn't mentioned in the ordinance anywhere that I could find.  Again, I wonder if that would include something like Kalamazoo's Anti-Discrimination Ordinance, should something like it be passed in Walker.

Guys and ladies, this stink I'm making over an apparently harmless law, which admittedly has been on the books for nine years now, may seem something akin to making a mountain out of a molehill.  If that is your honest opinion, then I respectfully disagree.  As does the Committee on Religious Freedom, which in January of 2010 wrote a letter to the Walker City Government that read, in part:

. . . Our grievance first and foremost is that the city would even consider asking churches to apply for a license.  We strongly believe our Constitution prohibits government from exercising authority over a religious body.

Though the current stated objective is for emergency purposes only, there is no guarantee that future administrations will abide by the same standards, but rather may impose expanded regulatory authority . . . the fee could be raised, and taxation of property could follow since this particular license is a "business" license . . .

What benefit to the church would issue from being licensed?  Or, put another way, why would a church become an applicant for a license?  What authority does the license grant the city, and how would it be exercised?  In case of emergency, which city department would inquire into the license status of any church before performing its duty with regard to the emergency?  What other agencies would have access to the information provided by the churches on the business license application?  Has not the City of Walker been able to properly address emergencies in the past without licensing the churches? . . .

The committee, in that same letter, asked the city to amend Article 1, Section 22-6 in such a way as to reflect that the City of Walker has no basis to impose government authority over churches in such a way as to restrict their freedom to operate.  Mayor Rob VerHeulen replied a few days later - again, quoting in part:

. . . Under no circumstances does the City of Walker claim the authority to inappropriately license the churches of Walker.  We respect the status of churches under the federal and state constitutions and intend to do nothing to interfere with the free exercise of religion.  We deeply appreciate the role of the churches and value them as an important part of the Walker community.

The intention of the application is not to "license" the church or to suggest that a church requires permission from the City in order to carry out its mission.  Our purpose was to secure emergency contact information that may aid in the event of an emergency.  In the event of an emergency immediate communication may be critical in saving lives and property.

Having said this, it is apparent that the ordinance is in need of amendment to clarify that we are not requiring that a church secure a license from the City.  We will refer this matter to our ordinance committee who, with our city attorney, will propose an amendment which, I trust, will resolve this matter in a satisfactory manner.

Thank you for calling this to our attention.  The language in the ordinance has been in place for a long time without objection.  It is comments such as yours that assist us in making certain that our intentions and language are consistent. . . .

So, the City Commission meeting set for Monday, March 22nd (starting at 8:00 pm), has on its agenda an ordinance to amend Chapter 22, Article 1, Section 22-6 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Walker, Michigan.  But it isn't quite what the Committee on Religious Freedom had in mind.  The proposed amended section will read in its entirety as follows:

A noncommercial enterprise operating in the city, which is not required to obtain a business license under this article shall annually register with the city in order to facilitate Code compliance, provide emergency contact information, and further the public health, safety, and welfare.  The City License Officer shall prepare all necessary forms and administer the registration of noncommercial enterprises consistent with this section, without the payment of any registration fees or any other charges.  Noncommercial enterprises operating in the city shall at all times comply with local, state, and federal law.

Nope, not quite reinforcing the provisions of Article 1, Section 4 of the Michigan Constitution.  Again, it may seem like a trivial or innocent matter, but an honest look at history (even back to apostolic times) reveals manifold government abuses against churches that operate outside of state sanction, and the usurpation of those that are deceived into operating within it.  The concept of freedom of worship is at the core of who we are as Americans, and the constitutional protections of the church from state authority exist for a reason.

Just a thought, y'all, but if you live in the Grand Rapids area, you might consider clearing some time on your schedule for the evening of the 22nd; I think that the mayor needs to hear from a few people more than he's hearing from now.