same link as furt posted: http://www.crossroadsphx.com
Click on ‘worship’ and ‘blog’ at the top of the homepage.
Also from the ‘outreach’ page:
I honestly don’t have an opinion on this yet but it seems pretty obvious that this is not a regular service, nor are they trying to pass it off as such.
Except for my reading skillz=phail. They were bused in, but by another group -not by the church.
I’ll see what I can do, but he was a homeless person who dressed in skins and lived in a cave. Someone else might be better at just pulling the pertinent quotes than I am. But right now I want to focus on the actual topic.
What’s unclear about that? They didn’t see what they were doing as operating a charity dining hall.
It doesn’t say fuck-all about their intent. It says very specifically what their intent was.
Mark 1:6. He dressed funny and ate bugs.
That’s a fancy website, it’s clear that they maintain it and update it regularly.
Actually based on your own cites it says specifically that it was a regular service.
Anyone arguing that the church intended it to be a soup kitchen is simply incorrect. There is no reason to read it that way, and at this point arguing for that viewpoint is not equally valid.
The stated purpose was ‘to feed the hungry’. I am often hungry when I am awake at 7:30 AM on a Saturday morning, and I have a home.
Exactly. *They *don’t see it that way. But it says nothing about whether they intended to feed large groups of homeless people, only that they disagree with the characterization as a CDH.
No, it doesn’t. It simply says that they disagree with the characterization as a CDH. Show me the words that describe what their intent was.
Isn’t feeding the poor what soup kitchens do?
Well, you certainly didn’t understand it in this instance.
Well, you said:
That sure looks like an all out attack on zoning laws.
There are an awful lot of people who like the feeling of moral superiority they get from attacking others for their supposed callousness to the poor and/or homeless. That appears to be the attitude underlying your posts on this thread. There is no issue of religious freedom here. There just isn’t.
So if someone starts busing in the homeless to my church on Sundays, and they are snacking on the donuts and coffee - we might get shutdown?
Don’t EVER come between a Presbyterian and his coffee & donuts. Trust me on this.
It depends on your local zoning ordinances.
They clearly intended to feed anyone who came to their door, homeless or not.
I did, I posted to the pastor’s blog.
Yes, soup kitchens feed the poor, but not every place that feeds the poor is a soup kitchen. What if every Saturday morning at 7:30 I bussed in a load of homeless people to McDonald’s, I put the entire bill on my American Express card, every Saturday, week in, week out. Does that make McDonald’s a CDH?
Sounds like a good opportunity for some hacktivism. Organize homeless bussing to their church service with the promise of a meal at another location afterward.
:rolleyes: You clearly need ad hominem to make an argument. shrugs Since you cannot argue with the substance of my argument, my attention span is officially closing for the afternoon. Have a nice day.
Your argument has no substance. shrugs
Where does it say that in the referenced quote?
??? We are talking about the news article.
Do soup kitchens charge for their meals?
You quoted it, you know where it says it.
Really, REALLY? You’re not allowing new evidence? You’re really sinking this low? Really? Like for really reals?
I wouldn’t charge them for the meals.
Now go sit in the corner with Lonesome Polecat, I want to discuss this with people who are actually interested in the issue and not playing games with process. If you’re going to reject cites that don’t support your assumptions, then this is fruitless.
Thank you for posting that. That, at least, has the reverend’s reaction (with similar questions to mine - can we have a potluck? Can we serve pancakes if they’re *not *hungry?), as well as a link to the actual decision (warning: PDF).
It looks like the attack of the decision on constitutional grounds won’t work - pretty clearly, the argument that they can’t practice their religion is an…exaggeration, at best. They can take the food to the homeless - they are free to purchase commercial property.
At the same time, the sliminess of the city council is sickening. An ordinance that forbids a *charity *dining service? Disgusting. Pretending that this is about anything but keeping the icky people away is just a lie. The decision even goes into the definition of charity (helping the homeless and poor) in its defense of why this pancake breakfast has to stop, but the boy scout potlucks and Elk Lodge dinners don’t. No, it’s nothing against the poor and homeless, it’s just *charity *(helping the poor and homeless) we’re against.
What was most interesting to me was the Pastor talking about Phoenix’s homeless epidemic. Phoenix is one of the worst hit cities in the entire country by the housing crisis. They overbuilt, and a lot of that overbuilding was shoddy construction that didn’t take the local landscape into account, such as the water table, or even not building sand so that houses wouldn’t sink and crack their foundations as a result.
Phoenix is a vile place. I do not wish to live there, ever.
The reason you cannot cite it is because it isn’t there.
The point in question is whether specific information can be gleaned from the news article, so no, adding a post to someone’s blog is not evidence. For really reals.
You asked if McDonald’s was a soup kitchen, not you. McDonald’s is charging, per your very own really real words. These are some really real dishonest debate tactics you are using.
How in the fuck can a cite to a blog support specific claims about what actually appears in a news article? Show me where it appears in the news article. You said it was clear. Then show me. Don’t throw in this bullshit about blogs.
There is nothing more to discuss with you.
You’re the one who’s playing games here. You invoke “freedom of religion” in a vague, general way in utter disregard of the fact that no establishment, not even a church, has the right to be a public nuisance. This is no different than a neighbor throwing noisy drunken parties every week or a bar that attracts a rowdy clietele. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. It’s just an excuse for a self-righteous snit.