Webre noted that the city of San Antonio had made accommodations for church members, allowing access to the park and granting permits for services like the midnight water service during the solstice, without charging fees. Furthermore, she argued that bird population management did not pose a significant barrier to the church’s religious practices, as there was no guarantee that birds would be present during services, regardless of the city’s actions.
William F. Cole, representing the Texas Attorney General’s Office, also weighed in, asserting that the intent behind the amendment was to prevent restrictions on religious gatherings, such as curfews or limitations on service times, which had been imposed during the pandemic. He expressed concerns that extending the amendment to every potential impact on religious services would exceed its original scope.
While the justices seemed skeptical of Webre’s argument regarding the amendment’s scope, they also raised questions about the plaintiffs’ broader interpretation. John Greil, representing the church members, acknowledged that there were limitations on the provision, including the lack of a duty for the government to facilitate religious services and the exclusion of inherently harmful activities from protection. He suggested that the case should not be decided based on hypothetical scenarios but should focus on the specific situation at hand.