Really the only conclusion you can draw after listening to some of the Blawgosphere’s responses to the Ninth’s Circuit’s decision on the LA anti-public sleeping law.
The contention that sleeping on the street is conduct is true – the question is how voluntarily that conduct is. If the state isn’t going to provide shelter, counseling, etc. to people are not able to procure private, paid shelter, it seems particularly egregious to criminalize the default option for many, which is to sleep on the street, without negotiating with private property owners so as not to violate trespass. See this old chestnut (or bag of peanuts), which couldn't be more on point - Robert L. Hale, Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State, 38 Political Science Quarterly (1923), 470-478.)
Even then I’ve seen a judge lock up a homeless person for sleeping (trespass) on *private* property where there was no evidence the property owner desired to bar the homeless person from the property.
There’s another question here, which is how much the government should restrict traditional uses of public space on first amendment grounds.
But aside from all that - ask why the conservatives care about this. Humane compassion? This is really the best way to deal with the problem of homelessness? Or is another interest being asserted here.