# 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:** 4
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/61 "2009-11-16T19:54:50Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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._ Yes, but again you are sticking to this definition thing even though it’s trivial to the argument. You and I are not in a courtroom, therefore the definitions in said courtroom are not the only considerations. > [@](#): > > 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. But they are not free to invite them to a community dinner where the poor and not poor alike are eating. > [@](#): > > I suspect that the Charity Dining Hall Problem would not exist. Since there wouldn’t be any dining. Just a guess. Right. Hopefully that church will start a homeless outreach and get those people to come to the church for services. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/62 "2009-11-16T19:55:58Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > How do you know this? Because I RTFA. :rolleyes: I even quoted you the relevant section. Maybe you should actually read it rather than dismissing it with ‘definition, definition’. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/63 "2009-11-16T19:56:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Sure it does. They are saying that people are not allowed to build community at their churches by communal breakfasts with the congregation. That is certainly about religious freedom. No, it’s about not allowing them to disrupt the neighborhood by being an “attractive nuisance” (I believe that’s the phrase). If it were a bar or a strip joint that attracted a rowdy clientele, the principle would be the same. If their pancake breakfasts are attracting an element which disrupts the neighborhood, the neighbors have every right to tell them to take it somewhere else. The fact that it’s a religious organization instead of a business has no bearing on the issue at all. > [@mswas](#): > > Of course zoning laws are the primary way by which we are atomized and separated from one another to create good little atomized capitalists/socialists. :rolleyes: Zoning laws are why no one can build a slaughterhouse and rendering plant next to your home, and why your neighbors can’t store high explosives in their basements. Or have you become a Randista lately? ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/64 "2009-11-16T19:59:11Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. Only to the extent that laws banning human sacrifice are an infringement on religious freedom. If that is what you meant (which I will bet good money it isn’t), then correct. it’s a somewhat meaningless definition of infringment on religious freedom, but if it makes you feel better, than have at it, hoss. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/65 "2009-11-16T20:00:22Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > No, it’s about not allowing them to disrupt the neighborhood by being an “attractive nuisance” (I believe that’s the phrase). If it were a bar or a strip joint that attracted a rowdy clientele, the principle would be the same. If their pancake breakfasts are attracting an element which disrupts the neighborhood, the neighbors have every right to tell them to take it somewhere else. The fact that it’s a religious organization instead of a business has no bearing on the issue at all. Or the cops could just come and you know, do their jobs like they do in the rest of the country where churches have breakfasts open to people outside of the congregation. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Zoning laws are why no one can build a slaughterhouse and rendering plant next to your home, and why your neighbors can’t store high explosives in their basements. Or have you become a Randista lately? If I were a Randista I wouldn’t be advocating for feeding the homeless now would I? Explaining zoning laws doesn’t mean a thing, you and I both know that I already know what the purpose of zoning laws are. This is a particularly irritating tactic that you are pulling, taking an argument about specific praxis and trying to turn it into a vague defense of zoning laws. Zoning laws are functionally necessary, no doubt about it, but sometimes they are unjust\* in practice\*. What this particular law says is that the appropriate place for homeless people is by the slaughter house unlike humans who are not of the untouchable caste. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/66 "2009-11-16T20:01:41Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. Okay, so you’ve never lived in a poor neighborhood, have you? Apparently you have no real idea of just how badly large numbers of homeless can disrupt a neighborhood. > [@mswas](#): > > 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. Ain’t talkin’ ‘bout them, I’m talkin’ 'bout you. Your attitude here is intensely self-rightous and judgmental, and I’m immensely skeptical that you could actually practice the level of tolerance and benevolence that you’re demanding of others. ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/67 "2009-11-16T20:03:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Because I RTFA. :rolleyes: I even quoted you the relevant section. Maybe you should actually read it rather than dismissing it with ‘definition, definition’. The part you quoted says nothing like that. It says nothing about it being a side effect, or what the original intent was. It simply refutes it’s classification as a charity dining hall. Show me anywhere in the article that the original intention was addressed, or that that the homeless showing up was a side effect. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/68 "2009-11-16T20:04:08Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Only to the extent that laws banning human sacrifice are an infringement on religious freedom. If that is what you meant (which I will bet good money it isn’t), then correct. it’s a somewhat meaningless definition of infringment on religious freedom, but if it makes you feel better, than have at it, hoss. Laws banning human sacrifice ARE an infringement on religious freedom. I disagree with your argument because it’s all about trying to couch it in more acceptable terms even though the result is the same. We ban human sacrifice because we hold the right of an individual to live free to be of higher importance than human sacrifice. It’s not meaningless at all. It’s meaningless to deny that it’s a diminishment of religious freedom. Your double-speak version is a way to infringe upon other religious freedoms without admitting that that’s what you are doing. Your definition is fundamentally dishonest. (Note: I am not calling you a liar, I am commenting on the basis of the argument) We accept some curbs on religious freedom. I am saying that this particular curb goes too far. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/69 "2009-11-16T20:08:56Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Okay, so you’ve never lived in a poor neighborhood, have you? Apparently you have no real idea of just how badly large numbers of homeless can disrupt a neighborhood. Can we stop with your bullshit straw men? This isn’t about me. I used to live in a storage unit in a warehouse in one of the most famous ghettoes in America Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn, before it was gentrified. Where I grew up in New Mexico there were shanty towns within a few miles of where I lived. > [@](#): > > Ain’t talkin’ ‘bout them, I’m talkin’ 'bout you. Your attitude here is intensely self-rightous and judgmental, and I’m immensely skeptical that you could actually practice the level of tolerance and benevolence that you’re demanding of others. Right, you are making an _argumentum ad hominem_ rather than addressing the arguments. It’s a logical fallacy, but not only that your ad hominem happens to be WRONG when it relates to me, because I have lived in several poor neighborhoods in my lifetime just as I have lived in wealthy suburbs and fashionable districts of New York City. The place I lived with the highest proportion of homeless people happened to be the most fashionable area I have ever lived in the East Village of Manhattan. You’re talking out your ass trying desperately to make a personal attack. And no I didn’t actually make an argument for tolerance or benevolence, I said that it’s a job for the police to come and make sure the homeless people don’t become disorderly, rather than shutting down a normal church service that is common to churches all around the world. I also argued that charity and community service are CENTRAL PARTS of the praxis of the Christian faith, so any ruling that makes it more difficult to do these things is indeed an infringement upon their religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![sugar\_and\_spice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@sugar\_and\_spice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugar_and_spice)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/70 "2009-11-16T20:13:12Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’d be a lot more inclined to be sympathetic if they were really engaged in homeless ministry besides a few pancakes on the weekend. Looking at [their website](http://www.crossroadsphx.com/index.shtml), I don’t see that. I wouldn’t assume they don’t do other activities just because it’s not posted online. Churches can be pretty bad about keeping their website up to date, IME what often happens is that announcements go in the weekly bulletin and only make the website if someone bothers to put the pdf of the bulletin online. The pastor’s blog does seem to make it clear that this is a service specifically for the poor and homeless, not a regular service that the homeless just happen to show up to. In particular it’s held Saturday at 7:30am, not exactly an hour that’s going to draw anyone who can afford their own pancakes. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/71 "2009-11-16T20:15:27Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > The part you quoted says nothing like that. It says nothing about it being a side effect, or what the original intent was. It simply refutes it’s classification as a charity dining hall. :rolleyes: What it says is that the church didn’t INTEND for it to be a charity dining hall. If you want to be pedantic, it helps if you actually get it right. The city may have deemed it a charity dining hall retroactively, but you are trying to argue that this was the intent from the first place, which is easily refuted if you RTFA. > [@](#): > > Show me anywhere in the article that the original intention was addressed, or that that the homeless showing up was a side effect. I did, your inability to comprehend what you are reading has nothing to do with me. The church in its defense stated that it was not hosting a charity dining hall, that it was hosting a worship breakfast. That goes directly to original intent. This is the last time I am going to explain it to you. If you do not state clearly in your response that you understand then you are not worth arguing with further as it will be a waste of both of our time. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/72 "2009-11-16T20:17:43Z")
> [@sugar\_and\_spice](#): > > I wouldn’t assume they don’t do other activities just because it’s not posted online. Churches can be pretty bad about keeping their website up to date, IME what often happens is that announcements go in the weekly bulletin and only make the website if someone bothers to put the pdf of the bulletin online. > > The pastor’s blog does seem to make it clear that this is a service specifically for the poor and homeless, not a regular service that the homeless just happen to show up to. In particular it’s held Saturday at 7:30am, not exactly an hour that’s going to draw anyone who can afford their own pancakes. Can you post a link to that? I’d like to see it. Because church-going folk certainly do show up for events at 7:30 and the timing of it is indicative of nothing other than the breakfast is hosted at breakfast time. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/73 "2009-11-16T20:22:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Or the cops could just come and you know, do their jobs like they do in the rest of the country where churches have breakfasts open to people outside of the congregation. Which still imposes an unfair burden on the rest of the community. The cops don’t enter into it until after a problem has already turned up. Nobody has the right to disrupt a community. Not even in the name of God. Your solution, by the way, would involve rousting the homeless on a regular basis, and I have a suspicion that you would then complain that the police were oppressing them. > [@mswas](#): > > If I were a Randista I wouldn’t be advocating for feeding the homeless now would I? Have your mother explain the concept of sarcasm to you. > [@mswas](#): > > Explaining zoning laws doesn’t mean a thing, you and I both know that I already know what the purpose of zoning laws are. This is a particularly irritating tactic that you are pulling, taking an argument about specific praxis and trying to turn it into a vague defense of zoning laws. Zoning laws are functionally necessary, no doubt about it, but sometimes they are unjust\* in practice\*. What this particular law says is that the appropriate place for homeless people is by the slaughter house unlike humans who are not of the untouchable caste. Zoning laws exist precisely for the purpose of preventing situations such as this. My defense of zoning laws wasn’t nearly as vague as your attack on them. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/74 "2009-11-16T20:27:24Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Which still imposes an unfair burden on the rest of the community. The cops don’t enter into it until after a problem has already turned up. Nobody has the right to disrupt a community. Not even in the name of God. Acceptable argument, but I disagree for a whole host of reasons. > [@](#): > > Your solution, by the way, would involve rousting the homeless on a regular basis, and I have a suspicion that you would then complain that the police were oppressing them. Only if they were rousting those who were not being drunk and disorderly. I don’t have a problem with the police rousting drunk people or arresting people for sleeping on the lawn of a daycare. > [@](#): > > Have your mother explain the concept of sarcasm to you. I doubt you will find any allies on this forum to help you argue that I don’t understand sarcasm. > [@](#): > > Zoning laws exist precisely for the purpose of preventing situations such as this. My defense of zoning laws wasn’t nearly as vague as your attack on them. Zoning laws exist to separate human activity by geography. They don’t exist precisely for this purpose. One can argue against this particular case without making it into a straw moratorium on zoning laws in general. I didn’t attack zoning laws in any way shape or form. I merely said that they are often used as an excuse to enact particular agendas. If you want to start a thread about zoning laws in general, then go ahead, stop hijacking this one. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/75 "2009-11-16T20:34:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yeah, that’s fucked up. Particularly if it’s not for the express purpose of feeding the homeless and just a part of their normal worship services. Sounds like an infringement upon freedom of religion to me. > > I once went to a Catholic Church in Red Bank NJ and they had a prominent sign saying that while some churches think it better if you show up to church at all, they’d rather you not show up looking like a schlub. My view on it was that I didn’t want to go to a church where John the Baptist wouldn’t be welcome. This is one of those “I never imagined I’d put those words together in a sentence”, but cite that John the Baptist was a schlub? I appreciate that one can dress down in Catholic church, but would prefer not seeing girls’ midriffs and butt cracks. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/76 "2009-11-16T20:35:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > :rolleyes: What it says is that the church didn’t INTEND for it to be a charity dining hall. If you want to be pedantic, it helps if you actually get it right. Here’s the quote – \*The church appealed the citation, saying it is a church and is not operating as a charity dining hall. Church officials maintained that its actions were protected by the First Amendment and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. \* This came in response to a ruling that said it was operating as a charity dining hall. It is an argument against said ruling. It says fuck-all about what the intent was. It says fuck-all about whether the original event was just for members and all the homeless folks were a side effect. All it says is that _whatever the church is doing, it does not consider itself to be a charity dining hall._ Gleaning any more than that is simply not justified. > [@](#): > > The city may have deemed it a charity dining hall retroactively, but you are trying to argue that this was the intent from the first place, which is easily refuted if you RTFA. I never argued what the intent was. I simply asked you how you know what the intent was. And how you know homeless folks weren’t part of the plan all along. It’s entirely possible for the church to argue that it is not a charity dining hall and at the same time argue that, as a church, it gets to feed large numbers of homeless people. In fact, that is what the church seems to me to be doing. At any rate, said argument does not address what the church intended to do, at least not as far as the linked article is concerned. As for your use of the word “retroactively,” exactly when do you expect a ruling to be made. Before the event happens? > [@](#): > > I did, your inability to comprehend what you are reading has nothing to do with me. The church in its defense stated that it was not hosting a charity dining hall, that it was hosting a worship breakfast. That goes directly to original intent. Specifically, where in the article does it say that? That the church claims that it is a worship breakfast, rather than a charity dining hall? I see where it says that it is a church, but I see no reference to a worship breakfast by anyone associated with the church. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/77 "2009-11-16T20:44:32Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > This is one of those “I never imagined I’d put those words together in a sentence”, but cite that John the Baptist was a schlub? Didn’t John the Baptist live on dew and locusts? To me, this does not paint a picture of a man with either the funds or the inclination to care about his appearance. Back To The OP I find this disgusting. I find the law here to be immoral. The homeless, no matter how smelly or annoying, are our brothers and sisters. We should treat them as such. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/78 "2009-11-16T20:46:35Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Can we stop with your bullshit straw men? This isn’t about me. I used to live in a storage unit in a warehouse in one of the most famous ghettoes in America Bedford Stuyvesant Brooklyn, before it was gentrified. Where I grew up in New Mexico there were shanty towns within a few miles of where I lived. > > Right, you are making an _argumentum ad hominem_ rather than addressing the arguments. It’s a logical fallacy, but not only that your ad hominem happens to be WRONG when it relates to me, because I have lived in several poor neighborhoods in my lifetime just as I have lived in wealthy suburbs and fashionable districts of New York City. The place I lived with the highest proportion of homeless people happened to be the most fashionable area I have ever lived in the East Village of Manhattan. I am immensely skeptical you could have lived around large numbers of homeless people for any appreciable length of time without becoming aware of just how much they can disrupt a community. If this is really your experience, you must surely know what a serious problem large numbers of homeless are for communities across the country. Something is very badly wrong with your attitude here. > [@mswas](#): > > You’re talking out your ass trying desperately to make a personal attack. > > And no I didn’t actually make an argument for tolerance or benevolence, I said that it’s a job for the police to come and make sure the homeless people don’t become disorderly, rather than shutting down a normal church service that is common to churches all around the world. A normal church service doesn’t disrupt the entire fucking neighborhood. Will you please try to get that through your head! > [@mswas](#): > > I also argued that charity and community service are CENTRAL PARTS of the praxis of the Christian faith, so any ruling that makes it more difficult to do these things is indeed an infringement upon their religious freedom. It ain’t no goddam charity or community service when it means I’ll find junkies and winos sleeping on my steps. It’s a well-established principle that places of worship are subject to the same restrictions and regulations as non-religious businesses and institutions. When a church’s practices, whatever they are, become a neighborhood problem, then the neighbors have every right to tell the church to knock it off or take it elsewhere. If you don’t want me pointing out your sanctimonious attitude, get rid of the sanctimonious attitude. I have every right to concern myself with the impact that my neighbors have on my life, even if they’re a church. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/79 "2009-11-16T20:51:48Z")
What’s interesting about that article is that everywhere it talks about feeding anyone, it’s followed by “the poor and homeless.” I’d like to see the city ordinance that was upheld. It seems like the city should shut down any large meal - at a church, at a school - if the food’s being given away and it’s in a residential zone, \*unless \*that ordinance really says something about poor and homeless people. According to [this article](http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/11/10/20091110Church1110.html), they actually were busing people in, which probably is what got them the attention. Still, I’d like to see the ordinance. Laws have to be applied fairly. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/80 "2009-11-16T20:55:10Z")
> [@bup](#): > > According to [this article](http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/11/10/20091110Church1110.html), they actually were busing people in, which probably is what got them the attention. Well, that pretty much blows the “side effect” argument out of the water. As well as the “it wasn’t their intent” argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=5)