# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/141 "2009-11-17T19:04:32Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well in modern times I’d argue that there’s an app for that. There’s really no reason why a PA system at a mosque is fundamentally different from an internet messaging system that would call people to prayer individually. So there is a technological solution to the problem you are presenting. > > It is very unlikely in America for a mosque to be in a Muslim neighborhood without that being ok. If it’s not in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood then broadcasting the call to prayer serves no purpose. So only the freedom of religion of majority religions counts? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/142 "2009-11-17T19:11:52Z")
> [@villa](#): > > So only the freedom of religion of majority religions counts? That is not even a response to what I said. Mosques do not need to broadcast the call to prayer in non-Muslim neighborhoods. They can handle the problem technologically. A PA is a technology, so is an iPhone app. If it’s in a majority Muslim neighborhood then it should be perfectly ok. It’s just not an useful analogy. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/143 "2009-11-17T19:15:49Z")
How about to homeless Muslims who don’t have cell phones? Similarly, there is nothing stopping the Church loading up pancakes into the back of a truck, driving them round where the homeless people are, doling them out, and witnessing while they do it. I don’t know what the religious significance of the call to prayer is, do you? Your sweeping statement that it does not need to be broadcast in a non-Muslim neighborhood, whatever that is, surprises me to. As is the concept that freedom of religion is now subject to majoritarian controls. If the majority of the people in this neighborhood of Phoenix didn’t want the church doling out pancakes to the homeless, would you think that is OK for the local authorities to enforce this law? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/144 "2009-11-17T19:22:01Z")
> [@villa](#): > > given that the alternative (setting up a table in a parking lot of an industrial park) isn’t much of an imposition. I know this is a tangent, but here’s the crux of why the law is such bullshit. It’s not that it’s a residential area - it’s who you’re giving the food too. That’s why sneaking it in as a zoning thing irks me so much. You would be allowed to do exactly what they’re doing in a residential zone, if the people they were giving it too were bused in from upscale condos. And it’s not just how they’re enforcing the law - the wording of the law allows them to give food to people - in a regular, organized way - if they don’t need it. I’m not really sure why I quoted about the industrial park. It made sense when I started. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/145 "2009-11-17T19:27:32Z")
**bup** - I’m not defending the law. I think there are pros and cons to it, and I would probably come down on the con side (though I would need to look at it and the situation there closer). My problem is the concept that a Church should be treated differently here… ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/146 "2009-11-17T19:35:58Z")
> [@villa](#): > > How about to homeless Muslims who don’t have cell phones? Similarly, there is nothing stopping the Church loading up pancakes into the back of a truck, driving them round where the homeless people are, doling them out, and witnessing while they do it. Homeless Muslims who don’t have cell phones might be screwed, but they can watch to see if the Imam comes out and gives the call to prayer in a normal tone of voice. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what the religious significance of the call to prayer is, do you? Your sweeping statement that it does not need to be broadcast in a non-Muslim neighborhood, whatever that is, surprises me to. As is the concept that freedom of religion is now subject to majoritarian controls. If the majority of the people in this neighborhood of Phoenix didn’t want the church doling out pancakes to the homeless, would you think that is OK for the local authorities to enforce this law? I don’t think the PA system is a fundamental part of the Muslim faith as PAs were not invented until thousands of years after Islam came to be. As **bup** says it’s not that they are feeding people pancakes. That’s not what is illegal. What is illegal is feeding POOR people pancakes. So I agree with you about your stance on whether or not it’s a freedom of religion issue. I think your Islamic point is a digression though. The better example was asking about other organizations like the Elks club and such. And yes, I would be kind of irked if it were illegal to serve poor people at a dinner that was open to the public at an Elks club. Because the serving of food is not what’s illegal. Opening it to the public, is not what’s illegal. Serving only a specific class of people is illegal. Sounds like suspect class discrimination to me, but as is abundantly clear, IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/147 "2009-11-17T19:37:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Sounds like suspect class discrimination to me, but as is abundantly clear, IANAL. Discrimination based on income only has to pass the rational basis test. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/148 "2009-11-17T19:38:37Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Discrimination based on income only has to pass the rational basis test. Which means? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/149 "2009-11-17T19:50:10Z")
Which means, bottom line, laws discriminating based on poverty status will almost always pass equal protection analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/150 "2009-11-17T19:59:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well what bothers me about it is this. > > It’s ok to have homeless people come to the neighborhood for church. > > It’s ok to serve free food to people who can afford it. > > So there are two factors here, serving free food and bringing homeless people to the neighborhood, both legal. > > What is illegal is giving the homeless people free food. > > That’s what gets me. Yeah, and I don’t get this: It’s legal to fuck. It’s legal to give someone money. But if you give someone money to fuck them - BOOM! - illegal! What up with that? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/151 "2009-11-17T21:00:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yeah, and I don’t get this: > > It’s legal to fuck. > > It’s legal to give someone money. > > But if you give someone money to fuck them - BOOM! - illegal! > > What up with that? As long as you do it in the privacy of your pod I don’t care what you do. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/152 "2009-11-17T21:11:50Z")
So pod-privacy is a factor, right? People vandalizing or burglarizing your pod is something you can take active steps to oppose, right? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/153 "2009-11-17T21:18:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So pod-privacy is a factor, right? People vandalizing or burglarizing your pod is something you can take active steps to oppose, right? As long as it doesn’t require you to get out of your pod and disrupt the sanctity of the pod space. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/154 "2009-11-17T21:50:55Z")
So what happens when someone else’s activities spill over into your pod space, involving and inconveniencing you against your will? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/155 "2009-11-17T21:55:23Z")
If your ‘community’ is an internet one, does that make you a part of an ipod? Memo to **matt\_mcl** : Please revise your Anatole France quote to reflect reality: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. But you can only get a free meal if you can afford to pay for one.” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/156 "2009-11-17T21:58:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So what happens when someone else’s activities spill over into your pod space, involving and inconveniencing you against your will? You are allowed to do whatever you can to mitigate this problem as long as you do not make anyone else aware of your problems as you would then be infringing upon THEIR pod-space. Two wrongs don’t make a right, starve in silence. ---
**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 17, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/157 "2009-11-17T22:37:07Z")
All this pod talk is confusing. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/158 "2009-11-17T22:37:28Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > And when people from outside that community come in and are cared for, boom, that’s charity. But this weekly service wasn’t _only_ for people outside of the community, nor only for the homeless. There surely were people from the community there. Besides, churches don’t operate like that. People from all over come to churches these days. Catholic parishes may have once been community based, they really aren’t any longer, and protestant churches never really have been just about the immediate neighborhood. Besides, do you think the complaints would’ve existed if the church said “anyone can come and worship and eat so long as they live (or squat or doss down in an alleyway) in this zip code and this zip code only.”? I think they would, so long as people can lay the blame for whatever homeless “problem” exists in the community on the Saturday worship breakfast. > [@villa](#): > > How about to homeless Muslims who don’t have cell phones? Similarly, there is nothing stopping the Church loading up pancakes into the back of a truck, driving them round where the homeless people are, doling them out, and witnessing while they do it. Except that this wasn’t just pancakes+witnessing, it was a worship service. Something that by definition doesn’t happen one on one, but it is a corporate, community activity. People praying together, singing together, engaging the scripture and speaker and sermon together. Getting a tract and a mini New Testament and a plate of cold pancakes (or a sack lunch or whatever) off of the back of Brother Bob’s F-150 isn’t an equivalent to what this church was doing. > [@bup](#): > > And it’s not just how they’re enforcing the law - the wording of the law allows them to give food to people - in a regular, organized way - if they don’t need it. I’m reiterating this because it’s desperately important. If this church had bused in homeless people for a worship service that _had no food_ and then released the service and offered to bus the folks back to wherever they got on the bus, and some of them bused back but others decided to wander around the neighborhood of the church, people would’ve complained, but there would’ve been no basis under the law for anyone to force the church to stop what it was doing. It isn’t the act of bringing homeless people into the community that is being attacked (even though this is the actual basis of the “problem” such that it exists and/or has been caused by the church’s once-a-week service) it’s _giving those homeless people food_. So once again: - Giving food to poor people who have homes? Fine. - Giving food to people who aren’t visibly poor? Fine. - Giving food to people who aren’t poor in any way? Fine. - Giving food to poor people who don’t have homes? Illegal! Stop immediately! Even if you don’t want homeless people in this neighborhood (which presumes that they wouldn’t be there to begin with) can’t there be recognition that the law, as written, is discriminatory and appalling on its face as well as in application? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/159 "2009-11-17T22:42:01Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > All this pod talk is confusing. Communist! ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790/160 "2009-11-17T22:43:59Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > If this church had bused in homeless people for a worship service that _had no food_ … there would’ve been no basis under the law for anyone to force the church to stop what it was doing. That’s an excellent point. We can’t stop poor people from just being. What we can stop is giving food to people who need food. Nice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nimby-in-phoenix-church-forbidden-to-feed-the-homeless/517790.md?page=9)