Adding a brick veneer is a structural change because that brick needs to be anchored back to your structural wall. L+I needs to see the proposed attachment detail to approve a permit.

How much is the whole job going to cost? 10k, 30k? If you don’t have a permit, you are completely unprotected from any liability. If someone falls off a scaffold and dies you are getting sued. If your facade fails within 6 months of work being completed and you have water infiltration you are going to have a harder time recovering money. IMO you can’t afford to not do it the correct way. A call and estimate from an architect is free. Just see how much they want and what they recommend. They are going to adjust their fee accordingly, you will not be spanked for a job this small.

http://www.tonerarch.com/

Call this architect, I highly recommend them for a project like this. The city is looking for a drawing (however simple) of the work that is being performed. The architect will make that drawing and submit the correct permit app to the city on your behalf, as well as connect you a qualified contractor that has experience performing this work.

It will be worth it knowing that the work is properly documented and permitted. Having the architect's stamped drawings and approved permit gives you protection is issues arise during or after the project is complete.

As others have mentioned, if a contractor performs this work w/o permit and something happens his or your insurance may not protect you.

I agree with you now

You’ve changed my mind

Students in a school don’t have unfettered free speech rights and are subject to speech and activity restrictions decided by their school.

I don’t think freedom of religion is at issue here legally. I think that would apply more if the school wasn’t allowing students to exercise religious practice during the school day.

Freedom from religion seems like a buzzword that has no legal grounding

That’s the hill they want to die on?

Progressives love this one simple trick

Edited my orig comment to add what I thought the previous commenter was wrong about

This take is really shockingly ignorant

“Demanding they go to a service of a specific religion is bullshit and abusive” - you can disagree with the approach but words matter, equating a relig. service requirement to abuse is absurd. The majority of people would not agree with that characterization.

“People who aren’t christians are SOL” - No, they will still be offered services discrimination free but are still subject to this private organizations mass requirement if they want to participate. If they are Muslim or another religion they can find Muslim orgs or mosques to render them aid, I imagine many do. If you give aid you are allowed to attach conditions to it.

Love this idea