Posted on 11/08/2014 4:31:25 PM PST by Mortimer St. Hubbins
Do-good fine. Police in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., again cited a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless in a public park, in violation of a city ordinance. Arnold Abbott, who runs a ministry called Love Thy Neighbor Inc., was first cited on Sunday along with two pastors working with him. They face up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler said the ordinance is not designed to punish the homeless or those who serve them but to balance the needs of all the city’s residents. Abbott, who has been working with the homeless for 23 years, told a local TV station the city wanted to ignore a very real problem. “You can’t sweep the homeless under the rug,” he said. “There are 10,000 homeless in Broward County, most of them in Fort Lauderdale, and there isn’t a rug large enough to sweep them under.”
(Excerpt) Read more at worldmag.com ...
Just gotta love your “compassion”, driftdiver.
You’re making a number of assumptions. Regardless, the immediate and pressing issue is that of feeding people who are hungry. If someone is standing there and wishes to eat, and you are able to hand the person a sandwich, I would. I certainly wouldn’t say,
“Get the hell off the street. Its bad for them and for the public.
Bull. Show me the ordinance which specifically states that no person can hand a hungry resident food in a public park.
A big difference between florida and the northern states is the weather. Homeless people live in tents or just a blanket year round. They get aggressive in front of stores and along the road. Public parks are for everyone not just the homeless.
You mean the homeless? I suffer no illusions there. Most are criminals, insane, etc. But not all. It’s really the fault of our liberal system which does nothing about them.
The article indicates that is why he was fined. I support several charities including the Salvation Army. I do not currently teach people to read.
What law did he specifically break?
Site the actually ordinance.
So its compassionate to enable a drug addict to live on the street, stealing and begging?
There are plenty of places for them to eat. They WONT go there because they can’t take their booze or drugs into the shelter.
Have someone defaecate and urinate in front of your business on a regular basis and then preach about compassion.
“The article indicates that is why he was fined.”
In otherwords, you’re either too lazy to actually find the ordinance, or you know the ordinance and it substantiates my point.
Go share needles with a homeless drug addict. You are the one disputing the article. You do your own damn research you twit.
It all comes out in the wash as the police enforce order and he makes his point.
I feel a song coming on.
I don't need to give you specifics. I'm not the arresting officer. Read the second sentence of the article YOU posted, or better yet, the article itself.
"Site the actually ordinance."
I believe you mean "cite."
“So its compassionate to enable a drug addict to live on the street, stealing and begging?”
And who’s going to force these people to move? We’re not talking about drug addicts. We’re talking about hungry people.
Those criminals you mentioned should be locked up or in a detention and rehab facility.
How do you know they don’t go there because they can’t take their booze or drugs? Did you ask them? Did you work with them?
The article is about feeding people who are hungry. Those individuals are going to be there whether the pastor feeds them or not.
For starters, see post #14.
This man is purposely causing a public disturbance, inviting a bunch of would be threats to families and others who not only pay for the park, but should be able to use it without being hassled.
As for it being a kitchen, well, there might be a better word for this roach attraction, but that’s the least of the problems here.
The problem is the 90 year old man.
90 days, one for each year of his life.
Oh, didn’t you know? He’s a “longtime Freeper” who just came back with a new name.
I don’t think he ever told anyone what the old one was, though.
So you’re too lazy.
The article’s about feeding people who are hungry, not drug addicts. Those homeless residents will be there regardless. The pastors feeding people who are hungry.
>>the ordinance is not designed to punish the homeless or those who serve them but to balance the needs of all the city’s residents
Translation: We, the government/liberals are god and get to decide who gets what.
We have a related problem where I live. My church was giving out clothing, food, gifts to various needy people. The local government stepped in as an intermediary. They try to make it look like the bounty is coming from the government and not from individuals or churches. We are not allowed to put any sort of religious message on donated items and there are restrictions as to what colors are allowed so as not to offend particular groups that might interpret it as patriotic or Christian. (No red/white/blue handmade quilts. No Christmas color schemes for “holiday” gifts or wrapping.)
For this reason, I stopped donating to my church. I make my charitable donations elsewhere. I refuse to deny my faith or to enable the government to take credit for my charity.
Other Freepers should consider checking whether their churches/synagogues are doing this. You might be surprised.
This coming from someone who’s only been here since ‘11?
FYI,
This Just In
Anyone who’s been there long enough knows that handle.
You sound personally involved with this group. What are the answers to the questions you asked?
Why don’t you invite them all to come live with you. You can feed them, clothe them and give them shelter. I’m sure they will be very grateful for your kindness.
You may surprise you, but a lot of us don’t keep track of trolls.
What was your previous name?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.