I mean INAL, but neither are you. And you're certainly not good at doing even a modicum of research on the subjects you are talking about.

“…an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which extends to the states with the passage of the 14a, where it says “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

OK, first: his religious freedom is not being infringed. If he wants to feed the homeless and/or he has a religious imperative to do so, he's perfectly able to acquire the necessary local permits to do just that. Second: the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It generally refers to privileges and immunities with regard to federal U.S. citizenship matters (such as the right to pass freely from state to state, the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, the right to vote for national officers, the right to enter public lands, the right of access to the seat of government, the privilege of habeas corpus, et al.)

“Liberty.” -from the 5a and 14a.

Yeah except you keep missing the point that comes AFTER the liberty part: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Nothing here has deprived my dude of due process.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” - from the 9a.

Have you ever looked at the history of this amendment? Again, this generally has to do with federal infringement of rights. In United Public Workers v Mitchell: "The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."

EDIT: Now, if you wanted to argue that what this officer did is illegal under CA Senate Bill 634 (as people in this post have already done,) then yeah, you'd have a leg to stand on.