ORLANDO, Fla. -- A controversial plan to feed the homeless at Lake Eola and other parks is heating up. The proposed ordinance would force groups who want to feed the homeless to get a permit. Each group would be allowed only two permits per year and it would affect all parks within two miles of city hall.

---

VOTE: Restrict Feeding The Homeless In Public Parks?

---

One of the groups organizing the feeding said they're not stopping and the ACLU will likely head to court to let the feedings continue.

The chants from protesters about "starvation" were hype Monday. Their Dixie cups of vegan chow served up Wednesdays at Lake Eola Park do help the homeless, but it's not their only option.

Just ask a homeless person.

"If you don't get food at the park that Wednesday, you could have gotten it someplace else?" reporter Josh Wilson asked Jacques Davis.

"Yes, I could have gotten it at the Daily Bread or the Salvation Army," Davis said.

GET WFTV NEWS HEADLINES BY EMAIL 9 a.m. Headlines Noon Headlines 4 p.m. Headlines News of the Strange Breaking News Alerts

But the protests outside city hall and the boos inside the city hall chamber during a public meeting on the subject Monday showed the level of passion on the side of those organizing the feedings. The group Food Not Bombs said they would continue the feeding regardless of what the council does.

The ACLU said they don't support breaking the law.

"That does not mean we don't understand or appreciate and won't do what we can to try to protect these people's rights if they are arrested for feeding the poor," said George Crossley, ACLU of Central Florida.

Meanwhile, the ordinance could end up hitting the city with big legal bills. A legal challenge was already being plotted.

The ACLU said some religious groups believe it is their obligation to feed the poor in public areas and that any ordinance would restrict their religious freedom.

"We know we have a case. We have a case for a lawsuit. We have a case for a potential injunction. We know that," Crossley said.

Of course, the city attorney's office, which wrote up the ordinance, believes it is legally defensible, but it could take a very long legal battle to see if any judge agrees.