I know your comment is sarcasm to make an ironic point, but I really don’t get your point. Bosstone said the law didn’t target churches and charity halls; it was no different than going after a store in a residential area.
That’s not true. The law in question targets churches and charity halls. It’s about charity dining halls.
If you’re saying that the law targets exactly those who break the law, that’s circular. If a law made it illegal to be named Bryan Ekers, I could make the same claim that it only targets those who violate the law.
If you’re saying my calling it a ‘dick’ law is unwarranted, then I think I have more standing to call it a dick law than Bosstone has to call it not-a-dick law (which he did). The pretense that it doesn’t discriminate against the poor and hungry is what makes it a dick law - that’s exactly what it does and is intended to do. I think Bosstone was under the impression it was just the zoning as a residential area that was being used against them, and that’s not true. It’s specific wording about charity dining halls.
My point is that the law targets an activity that, whether justifiably or not, is believed to have secondary and undesirable effects. I could buy that churches and charity dining halls were what the people who wrote the law had in mind, but also that the goal was get poeple to stop encouraging the homeless into residential areas, and anything with a similar effect as a charity dining hall would also have come under scrutiny.
Your observation was similar to decrying that an anti-murder law was unfairly singling out people who kill others, and something I found worthy of ridicule.
On reading that decision, it appears I’m actually quite correct. It is a zoning ordinance that specifies which establishments are or are not allowed within a residential zone, and charity dining halls are one of the establishments not allowed in residential zones, included for the same reasons a restaurant would be disallowed in a residential zone, I imagine. The whole thing about defining charity is to illustrate why this is different from a simple church gathering.
I note that the decision also says “the nearby residents worked with the police” (page 8 of the PDF). That would seem to undercut mswas’ assertion that they should just get the police to handle problems. It looks like they did, and police intervention wasn’t enough.
Well, part of the problem is that we don’t know what the size of the epidemic was. Someone crossed paths with a drunk once, twice, a million times? Someone tagged someone’s mailbox, once, twice, a million times? Someone was sleeping in front of the pre-school, once, twice, a million times? And if these events did not happen on Saturday, how is it the church’s fault?
Really we have no information to go on at all. We don’t know how widespread the problem is, how much of that responsibility the church should shoulder, or whether or not a couple of rich assholes got annoyed that they saw a homeless person.
Well he certainly knew this decision was coming then. If he failed to plan for it how is it the fault of the planning commission, or the hearing judge, or the people of Phoenix?
No, because it’s a serious point. If the local courts can’t be trusted to have the best handle on how the local community is affected by an issue, to whom would you defer?
Of course injustices can and do happen in local court systems. In the past, the Federal government sometimes sent in troops to maintain order and escort black kids to involuntarily desegregated schools. What’s your suggestion for this case?
No, just the judicial system in Phoenix. It’s fairly obvious you don’t like this law and/or how it was applied, and getting a happy little funtime out of tossing out condemnations and such, though at least you had the class to admit your ignorance of what was actually happening.
Anyway, I don’t have to make up some exaggerated version of your views. They’re silly enough already.