Texas woman invokes ‘religious freedom’ argument to fight $2000 fine for feeding the homeless

a reply to: seeker1963

Maybe it was the same cop who stripped a man
in a wheelchair of his transit pass because he
'didn't have written PROOF' he was disabled.

xrepublic.tv...

Now that takes the cake!

Well, it's a much better reason to need to use Religious Freedom to argue in court than "I don't want to serve gay people".

Nice to hear that someone's trying to use religious freedom for defending GOOD actions for a change, rather than using religion as an excuse for their hatred.

I think she has a better chance of saying Satan told her to do it, so the law violates her pact with Satan and her Satanist beliefs, as opposed to citing Christianity. The government hates Christianity more than an atheist wearing a fedora.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, it's a much better reason to need to use Religious Freedom to argue in court than "I don't want to serve gay people".

Nice to hear that someone's trying to use religious freedom for defending GOOD actions for a change, rather than using religion as an excuse for their hatred.

And yet the government views both as equally bad.

a reply to: TsukiLunar


Yes we must bow to our gov masters....

Even to feed the homeless....

Please

Here is a map where this is happening:

motherjones
and it seems to be spreading.

a reply to: Sremmos80
Low hanging fruit is easy to pick.
There have been a few other threads regarding this kind of sick crap..I think one in Florida.

a reply to: wasaka

That is so stupid it's almost funny..I mean does it take more than 2 brain cells to rub together to figure it out. Our transit police are mostly retired LEOs getting a nice pension on top of the 80-120 k a year transit cop salary.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: johnwick

Interesting question here: If she has a gofundme account and raised $2000 would it be more prudent to use it to fight the ticket or to just pay the fine?

It would be best used to repeal the ordinance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

We are talking about the homeless here. Many times governments don't even have to invent lies to discriminate against them, people just naturally go along with it anyways since people don't like being around the homeless.

Yes, it is usually the very people who think that their taxes are going to help the homeless who think of it in a very similar way to dog doody ordinances.

They think that charity is the mandate of the state, that "helping the poor" will remove them from sight.

Personal generosity seems to be tantamount to government failure in their twisted thought process, the only solution to which is greater funding for government.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: wasaka

I just have to ask the obvious here.

What kind of monster makes it against the law to feed the homeless.

And how big a dick do you have to be to make the penalty a $2000 fine?

a Republican. Homeless people aren't rich and as any real republican will tell you they should have started a food bank account long ago.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: wasaka

I seriously doubt she was charged with "feeding the homeless". Ill bet she fell on the wrong side of food distribution laws. Would like to see what she is charged with.

Why does it make a difference?

Feeding those who are hungry that usually get their food out of a dumpster, should not mean squat to a bunch of government bureaucrats who preach to the public how much they care about their well being.......

It makes a big difference. She could be putting anything in the sandwiches and we would never know. She she could do any number of things without oversight from anybody. I'm pretty sure there are avenues that she could take that would suit her charitable nature and still be in compliance with food distribution laws we have them for a reason and they aren't just to screw people over.

I give you, exhibit "A".

originally posted by: greencmp
Personal generosity seems to be tantamount to government failure in their twisted thought process, the only solution to which is greater funding for government.

Which the government takes and uses to further discriminate against the homeless.

While I appreciate the notion that it shouldn't be against the law to feed the homeless there is actually a very different way of looking at this that I've even had to point out to people who are advocates for the homeless. The homeless deserve the exact same level of protection as everybody else. I've heard the example of eating out of dumpsters before. Eating out of a dumpster is, though a terrible choice to have to make, still a choice. If a homeless person is getting food from a business or non-profit they deserve to be getting the same protections as you, me, or anyone else. Saying it's okay for an unlicensed and uninspected food operation to serve them because they are homeless is a slippery slope. Does that also mean we can have unlicensed doctors perform medical procedures on them since they have no health care? Can we just toss them in jail since it's better than living on the street? Should they get an unlicensed lawyer if they are accused of a crime since it's better than no lawyer?

If you wouldn't want an unlicensed and uninspected cafeteria serving food to your child or elderly loved one who might be in an assisted living facility then you should not be okay with a homeless person getting that food either. We can't lower our standards just because they're homeless. What I do support is a no-fee licensing structure for those servicing the needy, but I would never justify letting safety slide just because the people served are homeless.

This case I'm a bit confused by. It appears that she does have a licensed food truck but wasn't using it for some reason. She states that she will continue to provide food to the homeless while awaiting her day in court. Why isn't she doing it from her food truck? If the truck needs repairs then I think the crowdsourced funds should go toward that rather than a pissing contest over religious freedom. It would be nice if a judge waived the fine and allowed her to apply the money toward maintaining her license and truck, but if this turns into a crusade for religious freedom the people who need this service will end up getting the short end of the stick. Churches aren't exempt from building code. Religious schools aren't exempt from providing minimum safety standards for their students. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Neither does selling to gays have anything to do with religious freedom. You are free to choose your religion and go to church of your choice. If you serve the public you have to serve ALL the public, not just the ones you like. These morons would be singing a whole different tune if the electric company was owned by Muslims who refuse to provide electricity to non-Muslims.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Personal generosity seems to be tantamount to government failure in their twisted thought process, the only solution to which is greater funding for government.

Which the government takes and uses to further discriminate against the homeless.

I remember recently the health department in NYC shut down a charity that was systematically giving away perfectly edible catering leftovers.

The only reason possible is that they perceived that their authority was being circumvented.

We need more people like her, and I would've told that cop to go copulate with himself, these days the good are punished and the wicked and stupid are held in highest regard. Keep up the good fight mam.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Personal generosity seems to be tantamount to government failure in their twisted thought process, the only solution to which is greater funding for government.

Which the government takes and uses to further discriminate against the homeless.

I remember recently the health department in NYC shut down a charity that was systematically giving away perfectly edible catering leftovers. The only reason possible is that they perceived that their authority was being circumvented.

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner.

Now, let's call it what it is: False Authority.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

She is up to almost 6k at last check! If you read the page she also feeds first responders as well.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Food is one of the most basic needs..never mind with the regulation or the bureaucracy involved which swallows up all in its path.
I totally get what your saying and agree for the most part.

I honestly can't tell any more if its legalized theft, or a shaping of society's morals to become more base.

I'm leaning towards the latter however.