now i don't want you to waste a lot of time on the facts here because i think that we i mean i think we pretty much have that but there are some meaty issues here as far as that goes yes and i wish i had was going to address that and i think it's important and i do point out sincerely disagree with that we think that the court fail to recognize the proper continuum the proper analysis of what was required to show what you have that it will harm and you have going to be serious legal issues so the fact that you can claim that you've got a constitutional violation that can't in and of itself be the end of the inquiry but there's a couple of things that there's a i think a factual finding by the district court here finding in terms of that this was a temporary situation so that they were then they were going to put women elsewhere and that there's you know this was sort of a continuum and if you have if you apply johnston there's a couple of exceptions that can come out there and that could be that could be the dangerousness security issues there that protection issues and also to the long term goal is that this would governments required to provide homes you know shelters for the homeless and i you know i can't i don't want to sound hard nosed about this but i don't know that as a society or in the constitution that i see anything that says that you have to you know that you have to provide for the homeless and then and i think that all sort of flows over to that a lot of the shelters the people that are willing to it's not like everyone stepping up to the plate and saying hey i'm willing to shelter the homeless and a lot of the people that do it are faith based groups so you know all of this you've got all of this going on in one section will situation and it's a pulmonary injunction that eventually this is not going to be decided so why is it so why d court abuse its question if it found that this was the bigger picture wise we're going to have a place for women in the end and i've excised the part about you can't talk to people about religion anymore i mean why is that wrong purple mary injection when all of this is going was a minor constructed facility it had three floors completely separated market facilities for gender different genders it was monitored we had a ten year substantial evidence at all and i think that i asked to be that balanced against what is in the record the record which was which was composed of the documentation and declarations shows with millions of dollars in federal funds it was approved by the by the department of housing and urban development by the federal home bank they would not approve a facility without safety considerations and without a homeless population is the difficult part relation to serve under any circumstance the problems are exacerbated in the next gender shelter for there it is not always appropriate to have families particularly families with younger ponderable child and you sleep in the same facility as other members of the homeless alternative for for these people is it better for the women and children to live on the street is it better than to be in the car during last winter there isn't that they were also admitted he had no plan no feasibility study to convert convert that  facility for when he had five years right at one dollars a year where's the incentive for him to go and convert that there is not he didn't have a plan there's nothing in the record those women the court found conditions reapply the women could not his words where they were shut out and the women had no place to go is what you're saying they had no place there was the city made no arrangements for them they had no place to go boise is a relatively small town neutral and that that the cases have found those types of proxies what they call proxies will not obscure or in any way excuse to discrimination that you can't hide behind a proxy if in fact all that means is guessed means men but it really means is no women no children and we're not going to take your disabled like we did before the facts or argument that if you find it to be a the same employees keep everybody there that's what they want they didn't like it they were going to give preference to that now they didn't say don't bother proposing if that's not what you want to do and they can't rescue mission  is not a discriminatory nor an unconstitutional one it is a political question a hot political question without question without doubt but it's not a constitutional or discriminatory decision provided they say if they kept the shelter open for only certain types of folks that be a different issue well i guess you know what is that what is the underpinning for cities providing family i mean is there any is there any right for people to have homeless shelters is there any you know how to is it is that is it as you say it's a political question of each community decides how are we going to address our homeless situation and at this point the city of boise said we want to be out of the i believe that there isn't a constitutional or statutory requirement that cities be involved in running homeless shelters obviously if they apply for and receive federal monies and grants that are conditioned upon running those tied to the city's continuing running up to shelters but also keep in mind with the shift with the city one option obviously was just closing down community houses boarded up they didn't want to do that made when he when the court found the eviction so we're not discriminatory that's in that that the court specifically found that and the reason for it is everybody's treated exactly the same in under owner under the operations by the rescue mission to that building then that is the differential treatment and that's how the court approached the question and i think what's important here is and that's not how the city approached this is when the rescue missions proposal came and they were going to use the facility primarily for exclusively as against the syllabi initially they ask the question of how are you going to deal with women and families and that in the rescue mission responded to that by telling us we are not going to be shut out women are families being planned to provide services for women and children and famil they're there on a temporary overnight basis first come first served so addressing the the safety issue your honor and i think that's an important issue because that is the primary well i thought a primary but it's an this and how quietly we're going to propose to run this facility the way they are the point i think the point that's the thing that's important in the in the information that the study was given about the nature of the homeless population  there and seventy percent of it are there folks have alcohol and drug dependencies thirty percent of those have untreated mental health issues it is a problematic population and my thought i believe so your honor if we're looking at a facial challenge to this entire what the city did i think the facial challenge starts by looking first half the request proposal that the city sent out requesting people to you to come in and and give proposals of how they would go to take this facility over and if you look at that there is absolutely nothing indicating any preference new come back and win again but does that mean the city loses or can the city show that well that's right but the reason the women can't come back is because of safety and does the safety joining  process and there's too that it responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected rather than based on stereotypes so those are the ways that if it's a johnston cast as opposed to me donald douglas the questions the city back was were recognizing that you are proposing to not hals women in this particular facility and why why do you propose not to do that and how are you going to provide services to available and additional delivery to expand that another thirty minutes how many displaced women are there to be concerned about changing how many displaced women are there to be concerned about gaps in the  ain there may be some initial displacement but the idea being of what the rescue mission is going to be going to do that is overall expand the number of beds in facilities and if you balance that against the other mean so if you know the thing is i guess i mean if you were picking me from saying hey i want to christian program as opposed to i want a you know a jewish program then maybe you you have that issue and i'm wondering too in terms of that are people being you know what what is an individual's right in th society to have shelter provided by the government and what astronomy just an individual retain in terms of where they choose to go now obviously homeless people are in pretty bad situations and and a lot of the people that are homeless are children and they really don't have a whole heck of a lot of choice about that but by the same token does it is to do we have to be forcing them to go there and it's the government's purpose have to be but i'm trying to grapple with these constitutional issues in terms of what people you know what are people's rights in the society about that whether it is difficult it is it is the difficult issue i appreciate th frankly from a just cold and analytical approach as the governor is the government constitutionally required to offer housing for shelter to homeless people probably if they're going to that are in these that are in this business to provide care for the homeless and for for this for these populations are often faith based organizations but that's not the government's doing i mean if there is nobody else is willing to to be involved in this that's not the government's doing but then the government must do and that's been borne out by the i think guides can be getting from the good team from the supreme court decisions and the providing of aid or money to procure schools and the question there is is it a matter of truly private choice of the individual once they obtain the services i mean obviously in the context of the people who get services at b r and on city property if they truly have the personal choice of not participating but i don't believe the establishment cla  is implicated because obviously there's maybe folks that do want to participate and that's their private choice but if it is a precondition and there's coercion and that's an issue now the city never wanted that and they made it pretty clear when they asked the questions for clarification from the v r m when they got their national proposal that is why when the district court in its ruling said i understand that the city says we don't understand that to be happening we don't want that happening so you won't really object to me issue an injunction to make darn sure it doesn't happen and that's actually true we have no quarrel with that at all the b r m in it's lease with the city is required to comply with the law and not discriminate it's right in the lease if the they do that they breach and i don't believe they are frankly we welcome the district courts initial injunction to make it crystal clear that is not what we want what we expect is happening i believe if the people that are there are given the personal choice of being in are participating in the religious services or not then the establishment clause is not implicated try to go through this quickly as you can let me just address that last point to help build their place with over a million dollars in donations on the federal home loan bank of six hundred fifty seven thousand dollars that they are libel for today ok they didn't get  be enforced liberally to protect rights not deprive people of the rights of some of these other issues with regard to the population mr kohler talks about thirteen women that's thirteen women in the emergency shelter that's what the the court's findings record you'll see what that what they do to force people to pray there if you see their application about how they ask about jesus saves and about do you do you know jesus christ i guess some of my time and i'll just