# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/41 "2009-11-16T19:20:42Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Hmm… I was under the impression that the First Amendment prohibited legislating an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Yoi’re saying that a religious group that believes itself commanded to help the homeless is not exercising its “freedom of religion” in the way that one conducting a Mass or prayer service or listening to a sermon is? > > Although I suppose that’s getting into the religious aspects o the case, which I wanted to avoid. > > But still, suppose a morning meeting with breakfast is being put on by the local Humanist Association, and they end up feeding the homeless as well as themselves. Does this change the picture any? Honestly, no, not under current law. If the Humanist Association meeting is treated differently, then you have a case to make that the law is a front, designed to discriminate against religion, or is being applied in a way that violates the First Amendment. But simply saying “my religion requires me to do X” does not make it protected, if X is otherwise illegal under a generally applicable law. Look at [Employment Division v. Smith](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith), where peyote use wasn’t held to be protected, despite its sacramental use by the religion there. A lot of the time zoning laws are written to exempt churches (which, IMHO, should be seen as unconstitutional but isn’t usually). But where they aren’t, Churches are subject to it. The exception comes when general laws are seen as being targeted at a religious group. Back when I studied this, such findings were exceedingly rare, with, I think, only one law having been struck as a result - thats in [City of Hialeah](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah). The law at stake regarded animal cruelty, and was seen as directly taking aim at Santeria. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/42 "2009-11-16T19:21:55Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > It might be helpful if you would refrain from making shit up. I never said that a professional caterer was required. I said the based on my experience, such an event requires a lot of planning, and suggested that suddenly serving many more folks than just the membership would overwhelm them absent such planning. Yes, and sometimes they run out of food and send people to the grocery store for more butter, milk and pancake batter because more people than they expected showed up. If it’s a large congregation then likely they plan for a big turnout. > [@](#): > > Until you can come up with a cite for what constitutes a charity hall under Phoenix ordinances you need to stop making these claims. You have zero evidence that this is true. I have the original article and the decision to go by. As the church was not operating a soup kitchen then it only follows that they have broadened the definition to address all church events where they serve food indiscriminately. This can all be gleaned from RTFA. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/43 "2009-11-16T19:24:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And what that says essentially is that churches are not allowed in residential neighborhoods. Because hosting congregational breakfasts or other meals is something that almost every church across the country does. Go argue with the Supreme Court, not me. Even this Court that is incredibly religion friendly doesn’t agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/44 "2009-11-16T19:25:08Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > If a charity hall is such an organization then yes, one was. > > The article doesn’t say much about the particulars of the event, but I daresay that the church didn’t just have a pancake breakfast for it’s members and suddenly find itself feeding a bunch of homeless folks as well. Hosting such an event requires way too much planning. I say this as someone who used to work as a professional caterer. **mswas** answered this much better than I would. But the assortment of churches I’ve attended, it’s extraordinarily rare to engage a professional to cater a meal – they are prepared and served by the congregation or a subset of them. > [@](#): > > If everything else is essentially the same, then absolutely not. Why should it? Why should any organization get a free pass with respect to zoning laws? While I see your point, let’s note that there are cases where zoning laws acted to discriminate racially. (I have a couple of not-quite-apposite examples; I’m sure the Dopers-at-Law can come up with better ones.) A zoning law must be in conformance with the Federal and State constitutions and with relevant state and federal law to be valid. (See the First English Lutheran Church case and the Takings Clause, or the original Euclid v. Ambler decision that validated the constitutionality of zoning, for discussion of this.) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/45 "2009-11-16T19:29:48Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, and sometimes they run out of food and send people to the grocery store for more butter, milk and pancake batter because more people than they expected showed up. If it’s a large congregation then likely they plan for a big turnout. And that would be “the membership” that I referred to. Now add a large homeless group and “running to the store” just won’t cut it. > [@](#): > > I have the original article and the decision to go by. As the church was not operating a soup kitchen then it only follows that they have broadened the definition to address all church events where they serve food indiscriminately. No, it doesn’t. It might mean that it includes all events that are of a certain size, or advertise, or don’t charge non-members, or whatever the hell. You simply don’t know, and I am at a loss to understand why you won’t admit it. Since you don’t know the definition the ruling was based on, it may well be considered a soup kitchen, although I’m not sure why you bring that up. > [@](#): > > This can all be gleaned from RTFA. Actually, it cannot, for reasons stated above. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/46 "2009-11-16T19:33:45Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **mswas** answered this much better than I would. But the assortment of churches I’ve attended, it’s extraordinarily rare to engage a professional to cater a meal – they are prepared and served by the congregation or a subset of them. Which interestly shows an area where Churches tend to be exempted from laws - such gatherings may not be held to the same health and safety standards, even if an entry fee is charged. > [@Polycarp](#): > > While I see your point, let’s note that there are cases where zoning laws acted to discriminate racially. (I have a couple of not-quite-apposite examples; I’m sure the Dopers-at-Law can come up with better ones.) A zoning law must be in conformance with the Federal and State constitutions and with relevant state and federal law to be valid. (See the First English Lutheran Church case and the Takings Clause, or the original Euclid v. Ambler decision that validated the constitutionality of zoning, for discussion of this.) Where a zoning law is put in place to discriminate against religion, it is void. Just like any other law. Where it is a general law, applicable to others, and not tailored to attack religion, it passes muster. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/47 "2009-11-16T19:35:14Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > And that would be “the membership” that I referred to. Now add a large homeless group and “running to the store” just won’t cut it. Depends upon how large the homeless group is doesn’t it? Churches tend to expect non-members of the congregation to show up for services from time to time. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t. It might mean that it includes all events that are of a certain size, or advertise, or don’t charge non-members, or whatever the hell. You simply don’t know, and I am at a loss to understand why you won’t admit it. Admit what? That I don’t know how exactly that municipality defines things? I admitted that several posts ago. Doesn’t matter, because there are certain facts that can be gleaned from basic reading comprehension, and that’s what I’ve been addressing. They are saying that you must stop having a prayer breakfast if the homeless show up to your prayer breakfast. It’s as simple as that. How they define it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change my argument. > [@](#): > > Since you don’t know the definition the ruling was based on, it may well be considered a soup kitchen, although I’m not sure why you bring that up. The definition is irrelevant to my argument. Obviously a court ruled their service to be illegal. So however they define it was how the court ruled on the case. I am saying that regardless of how it’s defined, it sucks, because the end result is that if homeless people show up to your congregation’s breakfast and you don’t turn them away, your breakfast can be stopped by the authorities. It’s not arguing that you cannot feed your congregation, it’s arguing that you cannot feed the homeless at a breakfast you would have regardless of whether or not they show up. > [@](#): > > Actually, it cannot, for reasons stated above. It can. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/48 "2009-11-16T19:36:49Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **mswas** answered this much better than I would. But the assortment of churches I’ve attended, it’s extraordinarily rare to engage a professional to cater a meal – they are prepared and served by the congregation or a subset of them. Jeez Louise. I never said a professional caterer was required. If I gave someone advice on a carpentry issue, and said I was a professional carpenter, does that mean I am saying that the services of a professional carpenter are required? No. It’s just saying that that’s how I would do it. and providing my _bona fides_. > [@](#): > > While I see your point, let’s note that there are cases where zoning laws acted to discriminate racially. (I have a couple of not-quite-apposite examples; I’m sure the Dopers-at-Law can come up with better ones.) A zoning law must be in conformance with the Federal and State constitutions and with relevant state and federal law to be valid. (See the First English Lutheran Church case and the Takings Clause, or the original Euclid v. Ambler decision that validated the constitutionality of zoning, for discussion of this.) And if this one is found not to be, then right ho. An Arizona Supreme Court Justice (retired) didn’t think so. so at least the question of constitutionality under the state constitution seems to be covered. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/49 "2009-11-16T19:38:06Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Go argue with the Supreme Court, not me. Even this Court that is incredibly religion friendly doesn’t agree with you. I am arguing with you because you are here. Actually you argued with me, I didn’t address you first, so please keep that kind of bullshit out of Great Debates. The court doesn’t disagree with me. The court agrees with the zoning laws as defined. Whether or not that is a constitutional issue can be decided by a higher court. I hope it gets to the supremes and that it gets ruled in the churches favor. I really hate the kind of world I see being advocated for here where only organizations with a profit motive and the right expensive licenses have the right to serve food. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/50 "2009-11-16T19:41:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Depends upon how large the homeless group is doesn’t it? If you get to invent a large congregation, I get to invent a large homeless group. > [@](#): > > Churches tend to expect non-members of the congregation to show up for services from time to time. How many? How often? I suggest that that was the crux of the decision. > [@](#): > > Admit what? That I don’t know how exactly that municipality defines things? I admitted that several posts ago. Doesn’t matter, because there are certain facts that can be gleaned from basic reading comprehension, and that’s what I’ve been addressing. They are saying that you must stop having a prayer breakfast if the homeless show up to your prayer breakfast. It’s as simple as that. How they define it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change my argument. Sure it does. One homeless person once a month? Or ten thousand every Sunday? I can’t glean anything from that article that says that feeding a small number of homeless people once in a while is forbidden. And neither can you, because we don’t know how a charity hall is defined. > [@](#): > > I hope it gets to the supremes and that it gets ruled in the churches favor. I really hate the kind of world I see being advocated for here where only organizations with a profit motive and the right expensive licenses have the right to serve food. And where, praytell, did you glean that little nugget? Churches can operate a charity hall all day long in a commercial zone. No one is restricting their right to do that. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/51 "2009-11-16T19:41:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > :rolleyes: I live in Manhattan and have lived in New York City for more than a decade. Well, there must be something that explains your sanctimonious attitude. Homeless people sleeping on my front porch, screwing in the alley behind my apartment, stealing my laundry out of the dryer at the laundromat, demanding spare change in a threatening manner, defecating in the aforementioned alley, urinating on the wall underneath my bedroom window, lying drunk all around the neighborhood, drinking in the parking lot, etc. etc. \*ad infinitum \*tends to cut them off from my sympathy. They may be desperate, but understanding that they’re desperate doesn’t make them any more pleasant to be around. Perhaps we should try to help them, but aid should be contingent on behavior. You can reasonably demand saintliness from yourself. You can’t reasonably demand saintliness from others. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/52 "2009-11-16T19:41:57Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Jeez Louise. I never said a professional caterer was required. > > If I gave someone advice on a carpentry issue, and said I was a professional carpenter, does that mean I am saying that the services of a professional carpenter are required? No. It’s just saying that that’s how I would do it. and providing my _bona fides_. I don’t get why you are getting so upset that people are responding to your caterer comment. A caterer is not needed as a consultant or otherwise, to host an event like this. This summer at a festival I organized a dinner of Huevos Rancheros for more than 50 people. One guy who helped put it together had worked in a catering company before, but it was by coincidence. He just happened to be a dude that I was hanging out with at the time and it was great to have him, but it could’ve been accomplished with other people too. > [@](#): > > And if this one is found not to be, then right ho. An Arizona Supreme Court Justice (retired) didn’t think so. so at least the question of constitutionality under the state constitution seems to be covered. Right. It’s a pretty nasty precedent, but of course Phoenix culture represents everything abhorrent and repugnant about the suburban lifestyle. Complete atomization from your neighbors. My wife grew up there, it’s kind of a hobby of hers to follow all the crazy and stupid rulings that come out of Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/53 "2009-11-16T19:43:55Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Well, there must be something that explains your sanctimonious attitude. Homeless people sleeping on my front porch, screwing in the alley behind my apartment, stealing my laundry out of the dryer at the laundromat, demanding spare change in a threatening manner, defecating in the aforementioned alley, urinating on the wall underneath my bedroom window, lying drunk all around the neighborhood, drinking in the parking lot, etc. etc. \*ad infinitum \*tends to cut them off from my sympathy. They may be desperate, but understanding that they’re desperate doesn’t make them any more pleasant to be around. Perhaps we should try to help them, but aid should be contingent on behavior. Then that’s a problem with your police more than anything. This sort of thing has not been my experience in Manhattan and I have lived all over the city. > [@](#): > > You can reasonably demand saintliness from yourself. You can’t reasonably demand saintliness from others. What does this non sequitur have to do with the discussion? Hosting a worship breakfast and not telling people to fuck off because they are too poor to deserve free pancakes is a pretty low bar for saintliness. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/54 "2009-11-16T19:45:14Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > And where, praytell, did you glean that little nugget? Churches can operate a charity hall all day long in a commercial zone. No one is restricting their right to do that. But we aren’t talking about charity halls, we are talking about normal church services as they are practiced worldwide. With this specious notion of charity hall, you are saying that churches indeed DO NOT have the right to practice their religion, because ministering to the poor is central to Christianity. What if the homeless simply came to church but there was no breakfast? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/55 "2009-11-16T19:46:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t get why you are getting so upset that people are responding to your caterer comment. A caterer is not needed as a consultant or otherwise, to host an event like this. Who the fuck said it was? Please show where I said **anything like that**. I said \*\*planning \*\*was required. **Planning**. Not a caterer. **Planning**. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/56 "2009-11-16T19:47:48Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Who the fuck said it was? Please show where I said **anything like that**. > > I said \*\*planning \*\*was required. **Planning**. Not a caterer. **Planning**. Yes, and it’s a trivial point. They plan to make pancakes for a large group of people. So what? It really isn’t that hard to go to the store and by another 24 dozen eggs if you start to run out. It really isn’t. If you do this regularly then you might keep extra pancake batter in the cupboard. Yes, they planned to serve a lot of pancakes. What is your point? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/57 "2009-11-16T19:50:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am arguing with you because you are here. Actually you argued with me, I didn’t address you first, so please keep that kind of bullshit out of Great Debates. > > The court doesn’t disagree with me. The court agrees with the zoning laws as defined. Whether or not that is a constitutional issue can be decided by a higher court. > > I hope it gets to the supremes and that it gets ruled in the churches favor. I really hate the kind of world I see being advocated for here where only organizations with a profit motive and the right expensive licenses have the right to serve food. Your claim was that this was an infringement of freedom of religion. That’s just factually incorrect. I wasn’t arguing with anything else you were saying here, just that you are wrong on the law. The law might be an ass here; the Church maybe should be allowed to feed the homeless (though it doesn’t stop them doing that); but, under current Supreme Court rulings, it is not an infringment of freedom of religion. I don’t see 5 votes on the court to overturn _Smith_, unless you can tell my why _Smith_ doesn’t apply here. I might be misreading the situation, and I guess it is possible that the zoning law actually is written to discriminate against Churches, but my money would be on the local court having already caught that one if it were the case. As for keeping that kind of bullshit out of Great Debates, isn’t this the very forum where you should get called on basic mistakes? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/58 "2009-11-16T19:51:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > But we aren’t talking about charity halls, we are talking about normal church services as they are practiced worldwide. Apparently, we are. It’s the lead sentence in The Fucking Article. _A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church._ > [@](#): > > With this specious notion of charity hall, you are saying that churches indeed DO NOT have the right to practice their religion, because ministering to the poor is central to Christianity. Justice Robert Corcoran said what was said, not I, and he said nothing about preventing churches from ministering to the poor. As has been noted, they are free to pitch a tent in a commercial zone and minister all they want. > [@](#): > > What if the homeless simply came to church but there was no breakfast? I suspect that the Charity Dining Hall Problem would not exist. Since there wouldn’t be any dining. Just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/59 "2009-11-16T19:52:39Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Your claim was that this was an infringement of freedom of religion. That’s just factually incorrect. No, you’re wrong. It IS an infringement upon religious freedom regardless of what the courts say. If the courts say it’s ok to infringe upon their religion in this manner then that’s the law of the land but that doesn’t make it NOT an infringement because it IS an infringement. > [@](#): > > I wasn’t arguing with anything else you were saying here, just that you are wrong on the law. The law might be an ass here; the Church maybe should be allowed to feed the homeless (though it doesn’t stop them doing that); but, under current Supreme Court rulings, it is not an infringment of freedom of religion. I don’t see 5 votes on the court to overturn _Smith_, unless you can tell my why _Smith_ doesn’t apply here. I might be misreading the situation, and I guess it is possible that the zoning law actually is written to discriminate against Churches, but my money would be on the local court having already caught that one if it were the case. Except that this breakfast’s intention wasn’t to feed the homeless that was a side-effect. If the supreme court rules against this church then what it is ostensibly saying is that municipalities have the right to shut down any church service in which homeless people might attend. > [@](#): > > As for keeping that kind of bullshit out of Great Debates, isn’t this the very forum where you should get called on basic mistakes? I meant the, “Don’t talk to me after I have been addressing you directly.”, comment. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/60 "2009-11-16T19:54:10Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except that this breakfast’s intention wasn’t to feed the homeless that was a side-effect. How do you know this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=4)