# NIMBY in Phoenix: Church Forbidden to Feed the Homeless **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790 "2009-11-16T17:01:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/221 "2009-11-22T00:41:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, that’s how they responded to the charges. Read it again yourself. His point was that they were feeding EVERYONE, not feeding the poor. Poor people came to the service and yes they fed them on purpose. But the purpose was NOT to be a charitable dining hall. I understand they fed everyone. That doesn’t mean they weren’t primarily interested in feeding the “hungry.” I’ve have some serious doubts that they just happened to set up a worshiping service that included breakfast. There’s zero chance that maybe they fed everyone in order to circumvent the zoning law? > [@](#): > > It’s kind of amazing that you could read that entire post and come away with this view. His entire point was about how his congregation is being punished for feeding the wrong class of people. I find it even more amazing that you read it and simply chose to take **her** word at face value. > [@](#): > > Why do you feel the need to blow off every other piece of information relevant? That there WAS a worship service, and that they fed EVERYONE who attended. Why is that all irrelevant to you? I was simply pointing out that this isn’t as clear cut as you would like to present it. It isn’t patently obvious that the peace loving congregation of CrossRoads were innocently having their pancake worship when the man came along and tried to shut them down because \ poor people were in attendance. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/222 "2009-11-22T04:00:10Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > What a pain in the ass self-righteous, sanctimonious liberals are! > [@mswas](#): > > I think you are able to return sanctimony admirably. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Would you like to run them out of your neighbourhood too ? That’s enough. Don’t make this personal. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/223 "2009-11-22T16:33:18Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I understand they fed everyone. That doesn’t mean they weren’t primarily interested in feeding the “hungry.” I’ve have some serious doubts that they just happened to set up a worshiping service that included breakfast. There’s zero chance that maybe they fed everyone in order to circumvent the zoning law? It does actually mean that. Rich people get hungry too. ‘The Hungry’ means anyone who wants to eat breakfast. It’s not some sort of socio-economic code. As was made quite clear in the blog you claim to have read. You have serious doubts that a church setup a worship service? Are you serious? > [@](#): > > I find it even more amazing that you read it and simply chose to take **her** word at face value. Rather than the narrative you are simply making up? I generally don’t find that churches lie about setting up worship services. If a church says they are having a worship service I tend to believe there is a worship service. > [@](#): > > I was simply pointing out that this isn’t as clear cut as you would like to present it. It isn’t patently obvious that the peace loving congregation of CrossRoads were innocently having their pancake worship when the man came along and tried to shut them down because \ poor people were in attendance. No, it is as clear cut as I am presenting it. There is no other rational reading. It’s truly bizarre that you are saying that a church setup a fake worship service so they could nefariously feed the homeless. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/224 "2009-11-22T17:35:11Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > No, it was in answer to the suggestion that they should just go do this “somewhere else.” It’s not a practical solution. Distributing food elsewhere **is** a practical solution. It may not be the easiest, but it is certainly possible. It happens all the time > [@tumbleddown](#): > > The law is stopping them. This ruling is stopping them, or will, if it’s upheld on appeal. 😕 > [@tumbleddown](#): > > And they are. Nothing in this law stops the church distributing food. That is blatantly untrue. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > It seems pretty clear that the aim is to have a worship service and then fellowship with those who come with a nice warm meal. This is something that happens at churches and synagogues and perhaps also mosques all around the country all the time. And that’s what’s problematic: something typical and usual in religious congregations is being specifically quashed _because of who is attending_. As I have said, I am not a big fan of this law. But it has nothing to do with religious freedom whatsoever. But the law isn’t saying that you cannot have a religious service and feed people, it is saying you cannot distribute hot meals to the needy in residential areas. It applies as much to other groups as well as religious ones. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > No one is being compelled to turn up to “sit through” something to get this meal. As I noted earlier, the people who are coming on the bus are coming from residential facilities (halfway houses, bridge housing, mental health and/or addiction programs) where they live full time. They don’t have to get on a bus and go elsewhere to get breakfast. The others who are coming on their own are coming of their own volition. From the various videos, it looks like, as in most church service situations, like all the attendees are, to some degree, _participating_. Some people actually do enjoy going to church, you know, including homeless people. And nothing is stopping homeless people going to church. Nothing. Any law that tried to do that would be struck down. The community has, for reasons none of us know, determined that a problem exists when groups feed the homeless in residential neighborhoods. I think such a law is **probably** mean spirited and unnecessary. I concede there may be extreme problems requiring such a law, but none of us know if they are present. I would think it unlikely they are. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > What does that even mean? It’s a church service. This has been addressed. This is something different and separate from fulfilling a separate charitable imperative. This is about more than the meal, which is what the court decision is ignoring. _They are having a worship service together, a corporate and cooperative act_, and fellowshiping with one another over a meal in adjunct to it. It means that while feeding the needy and saving souls are both legitimate activities, it is permissible under the constitution to require them to be separate, or, more accurately, to require them not to occur together in a residential neighborhood. I would be less than happy if a church brought the 5 houses next to me in my row and used them to hold services, regardless of whether food was served. And a laws regarding parking, for example, would equally apply to that Church. Noise laws too. What I am complaining about (from a position where as I have said I presume I would oppose this law) is the idea that if the Church cannot preach and feed together, it is preventing them feeding. I don’t like the concept that to get the food, one has to have the worship - and that is one of the reasons I had an issue with the whole faith based initiative malarkey. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/225 "2009-11-22T17:38:32Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You have serious doubts that a church setup a worship service? Are you serious? I don’t know if you’re being intentionally obtuse or it’s just a byproduct of this particular issue. Either way I’m through. Congratulations, you win. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/226 "2009-11-22T18:34:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You have serious doubts that a church setup a worship service? Are you serious? The fields glow red with the number of straw men you’ve been burning in this thread. It is not obvious that _this particular pancake breakfast_ is a worship service. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/227 "2009-11-22T18:34:59Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > The fields glow red with the number of straw men you’ve been burning in this thread. > > It is not obvious that _this particular pancake breakfast_ is a worship service. Well other than the fact that the church has explicitly stated that it was. But other than that, there’s no reason to believe it, you’re correct. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/228 "2009-11-22T18:50:18Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well other than the fact that the church has explicitly stated that it was. > > But other than that, there’s no reason to believe it, you’re correct. Yeeeah, perhaps it’s just that I’m a complete religion-hater, but I’m not going to take the word of the party the court found against as, ahem, gospel. Doesn’t mean I think they’re 100% lying, but I do think it merits looking beyond merely what they say and at the full situation. You’ve chosen not to. So it goes. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/229 "2009-11-22T18:52:41Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Yeeeah, perhaps it’s just that I’m a complete religion-hater, but I’m not going to take the word of the party the court found against as, ahem, gospel. Doesn’t mean I think they’re 100% lying, but I do think it merits looking beyond merely what they say and at the full situation. You’ve chosen not to. So it goes. I cannot really know your internal mental state, but if you are offering up a theory in contradiction to their explicit statements, I don’t know what else to say about it. There is no reason to believe that there is any dishonesty going on. They held a worship breakfast and invited poor people. What’s so difficult about that? Why do you need to find some kind of cawnspeeracey? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/230 "2009-11-22T19:49:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > There is no reason to believe that there is any dishonesty going on. Actually, there is. The court found against them. Now, the court’s not infallible, but that does mean it’s not as clear-cut as you so desperately want to believe. Someone who ran a red light might say that they got into the intersection while it was still yellow, and they may even believe it, but their say-so doesn’t automatically mean they’re right. Or does the fact that it’s a church give their word extra-super-special weight? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/231 "2009-11-22T19:52:48Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Actually, there is. The court found against them. Now, the court’s not infallible, but that does mean it’s not as clear-cut as you so desperately want to believe. The court finding against someone isn’t evidence of dishonesty in any way shape or form. I don’t know why you would think this. It IS as clear cut as I think. They didn’t define it as a charitable dining hall, and the court did. It’s a difference of opinion, and they lost it in court. Why does that imply lying to you? > [@](#): > > Someone who ran a red light might say that they got into the intersection while it was still yellow, and they may even believe it, but their say-so doesn’t automatically mean they’re right. Or does the fact that it’s a church give their word extra-super-special weight? They said straight up what it was, and it is something that EVERY church in the country does. It just so happens that they are in a district that has zoning regulations that can be interpreted broadly. It’s clearly obvious that you have an axe to grind. Because there is simply no reason to believe that there is any dishonesty going on. They had a worship service and invited poor people to attend. That was deemed illegal by the court. Your opinion is not equally valid, you’re just making shit up. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/232 "2009-11-22T20:51:43Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s clearly obvious that you have an axe to grind. > > _snip_ > > Your opinion is not equally valid, you’re just making shit up. Attack me personally all you like. You’re clearly unwilling to discuss this rationally. As should be obvious from my last post, they may not necessarily be lying as they see it, but that doesn’t mean they’re actually right. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/233 "2009-11-22T22:03:31Z")
It’s not personal, you’re just making shit up to suit your bias. If you’re going to talk about rational, why don’t we stick with the facts rather than junior psychoanlysis where you assume that a church is lying about doing what churches normally do. Your opinion is patently absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/234 "2009-11-22T22:25:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s not personal, you’re just making shit up to suit your bias. If you’re going to talk about rational, why don’t we stick with the facts rather than junior psychoanlysis where you assume that a church is lying about doing what churches normally do. > > Your opinion is patently absurd. You mean fact, right? As in the only one you’re considering, ignoring all the others? But hey, whatever you say. I’m the crazy irrational absurd one here. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/235 "2009-11-22T22:31:20Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > You mean fact, right? As in the only one you’re considering, ignoring all the others? > > But hey, whatever you say. I’m the crazy irrational absurd one here. I am saying that the pastor is telling the truth because what he describes is pretty consonant with my experiences of how churches operate. Churches have worship breakfasts and they aren’t in the habit of turning people away based upon economic strata. So really it’s not MY opinion, it’s the facts. What you are saying is that the pastor is lying about operating a church like it was a church. It’s absurd. You are the crazy irrational absurd one. Just because the court decides against your behavior doesn’t mean you are lying about your behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/236 "2009-11-22T23:23:04Z")
A question: Whad does “operating a church like it was a church” mean? (Not personal, **mswas** ; it’s at the core of this dispute.) Running a sunday morning service, with or without communion? Meeting the spiritual needs of the surrounding community? Holding revivals? Meeting the practical needs of the surrounding community? Reaching out to those who need help? Building community? Teaching the brotherhood of man? Teaching the need to be separate and holy? Giving away religious literature? Selling religious literature? Some of these? All of these? None of these? It’s not a hypothetical question – if there’s a reason to bring people who need Jesus and food to an event that provides both, that’s by some definitions an integral part of their mission. After all, we don’t require malls with Sears stores to be in appliance-repair shop zones, even though Sears guarantees their appliances; it’s an integral part of running a business that sells appliances among other things. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/237 "2009-11-23T01:53:46Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Distributing food elsewhere **is** a practical solution. It may not be the easiest, but it is certainly possible. It happens all the time However, distributing food _isn’t what this is_ which has been the church’s point from the beginning. Go watch the video on the church’s website of scenes from one of the services. There is singing. There is prayer. There is communion. There is a sermon. By any definition, a group of people gathered together and doing those things is a worship service. There’s a breakfast afterward. The congregation for the service is made up of people from the community, some of whom are homeless, people who come by bus from various residential programs, and people who have been a part of this congregation for years. > [@](#): > > Nothing in this law stops the church distributing food. That is blatantly untrue. No, but the selective enforcement of the law and this ruling stops the church from having this worship service in the fashion that they have deemed most advantageous to their community of faith. That’s significant. > [@](#): > > As I have said, I am not a big fan of this law. But it has nothing to do with religious freedom whatsoever. But the law isn’t saying that you cannot have a religious service and feed people, it is saying you cannot distribute hot meals to the needy in residential areas. It applies as much to other groups as well as religious ones. The law _is_ saying that you can’t have a religious service and feed people so long as the people (or some portion thereof) are poor. Because that’s what this church was doing, and that’s what they’ve been told that they can no longer do. It’s pretty plain on its face that if your congregation has poor people in it, the law in Phoenix says that the very usual activity of a congregational meal is barred for your group unless you go off of the church property to somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/238 "2009-11-23T05:02:39Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > However, distributing food _isn’t what this is_ which has been the church’s point from the beginning. Go watch the video on the church’s website of scenes from one of the services. There is singing. There is prayer. There is communion. There is a sermon. By any definition, a group of people gathered together and doing those things is a worship service. There’s a breakfast afterward. The congregation for the service is made up of people from the community, some of whom are homeless, people who come by bus from various residential programs, and people who have been a part of this congregation for years. And there is nothing in this law, as far as I can see, stopping any of the worship activities. Nothing at all. Nor is the church prevented from distributing food. They are prevented from distributing food in a residential neighborhood to the homeless whether there is a service or not. The service is irrelevant to the law. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > No, but the selective enforcement of the law and this ruling stops the church from having this worship service in the fashion that they have deemed most advantageous to their community of faith. That’s significant. You have any evidence of selective enforcement? If there is selective enforcement, you would be getting close to a case that the law is unconstitutional. And a church doesn’t have the right to determine what the most advantageous method of holding a service if, if that method violates generally applicable laws. They might decide it is most advantageous to offer peyote as a sacrament, but the fact it is a religious service does not isolate it from the drug laws. > [@tumbleddown](#): > > The law _is_ saying that you can’t have a religious service and feed people so long as the people (or some portion thereof) are poor. Because that’s what this church was doing, and that’s what they’ve been told that they can no longer do. It’s pretty plain on its face that if your congregation has poor people in it, the law in Phoenix says that the very usual activity of a congregational meal is barred for your group unless you go off of the church property to somewhere else. The law does not say that. It says you cannot hold a religious service and feed people so long as the people (or some portion thereof) are poor if you are located in a residential neighborhood. It also says you cannot hold a lecture regarding Newtonian physics and feed people so long as the people (or some portion thereof) are poor if you are located in a residential neighborhood. Or that you cannot hold a Klan rally and feed people so long as the people (or some portion thereof) are poor if you are located in a residential neighborhood. You can, on the other hand, hold a religious service and feed people so long as the people (or some portion thereof) are poor if you are located in a commercial district. Do you think zoning laws should not apply to religious organizations? From the sound of it, this is a bloody stupid law. But trying to shoehorn it as discriminating against religion, absent evidence of selective enforcement or discriminatory intent, doesn’t work. However much you want to assume… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=11)