Scalia wonders if the state can "decline to provide fire protection for churches and synagogues." Souter answers for Pierce: "Washington's position is that it will put out a fire in a church, but it won't spend money ensuring that people will go inside a church."I agree with this. I assume most church members pay taxes that support the local fire department, so I see no reason why they should be denied this basic service once they enter a certain structure. I don't know how sewer service works in other cities, but I pay for it along with my water bill, so I assume churches would pay for that service on their own. Back when I still went to church, I remember notices in the bulletin outlaying their expenses, which included utilities such as heating and electricity. I assume sewer services fell under this category as well: Services the church needed to pay for itself, hopefully covered by the contributions of its members. And this is how I think it should be: I don't think the state should refuse to provide basic services to religious organizations, but I also don't think those groups should get those services for free. The Constitution only guarantees the right to express one's faith; it doesn't guarantee the right to do so in a elaborate building with enormous upkeep costs.