magically appear. Since they can't do that for the homeless, it must be a sign from God that they don't deserve to eat.

"Feed them and then the next thing they do, they begin to multiply..." A big WTF???

And they like it that way.

from taking care of the "homeless problem" with guns? That's their answer to everything else.

the street children, often while they slept. I don't know if that still happens, but with Brazil trying to "clean up" for their star turn as an Olympic host site, I sure would not be surprised if they are still doing that, but more carefully.

A good republican would not get rid of its cash cow and have all the private prisons go bankrupt.

and it's illegal in Houston too. I'm good with breaking that law. I just gave a guy some money and bought him and his dog some burgers and dog food not a half hour ago. It never even occurred to me it'd be illegal, because most people aren't screaming dickheads that see someone that has nowhere to live and think the real crime is that they haven't starved to death yet.

America - which grew to prosperity based on its instinct to help the underdog - has found it shameful to help the underdog, or to even tolerate them. Now it's making it illegal to help them.

It is truly sad.

.

The article is correct about red states and their treatment of the homeless but what it doesn't point out - and what I find most shocking - is that Birmingham's serving mayor is a Democrat. And it seems to be city's first African-American mayor, too.

It all just makes me cringe.

unfortunately, to many people vote for those who are. Thanks for the term "screaming dickhead"- I am going to use that in the future.

.

City Manager's annual salary from 278k to 315K while city workers are going to be asked to concede salary or benefits. WTF is that about?

Simple, unabashed, GREED.

that so many conservative cities have Dem mayors. What's the point of election a democrat if this the extent of their social awareness?

Those have gone the way of pay phones here- they now all have dividers that seem to be there just to make them uncomfortable or impossible to lie down on; sort of like the bird-deterrent stuff they put on light posts and interior storefront corners, but for homeless people.

And even more respect for the Alabama lawyer(s) who will get after this in support.

I thought the pukes solution is for churches step in to care for those less fortunate thus eliminating the need for SNAP and other assistance programs?

limiting church charity to members who meet increasingly stringent qualifications. They're also talking a lot about discouraging parishoners from taking outside charity, and from giving to charity outside their church community.

Catholic Charities give to all. There isn't even such a thing as official membership.

Just one example:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-18/news/chi-groups-lose-nearly-300000-from-catholic-charity-over-gay-marriage-issue-20131018_1_catholic-campaign-gay-marriage-issue-teachings

a Catholic charity is not Catholic Charities.
Catholic Charities is the name given to each Diocese's social services arms.
The OP concerned itself with churches giving to members only. Getting back to the OP, Catholic Charities does not look at membership (there is no such thing as official membership in the Catholic Church) and does not restrict its giving to Catholics.

money. Example, In 2010, Catholic Charities had revenues of $4.7 billion, $2.9 billion of which came from the US government. Only about $140 million came from donations from diocesan churches.
Catholic Charities has discriminated against LGBT often and in many ways, in fact they have frequently chosen to cut programs for all rather than be forced to include LGBT equally. In 2010, Catholic Charities of DC, for example, ended health benefits for employee's spouses to avoid including same sex couples.
So tell yourself stories if you wish, but do not expect them to go uncontested by those who know the facts.

Talk about separation of church and state....

Assault is an offensive touching of a person or something attached to them.

There is an early 1960s case with the Carousel Motor Hotel of Houston in which a man was in line for a buffet with a plate in his hand, someone with the motel staff grabbed his plate out of his hand, and it was ruled an offensive touching and therefore assault. I remember that case from Torts class in law school.

Sounds to me like snatching hot dogs out of hungry peoples' hands is assault as well.

That's my unofficial legal opinion. You're welcome.

The reason that matters is that the manager snatched the plate from the man, a mathematician at a conference, and yelled at him in front of his associates because he was African American, and the manager said they wouldn't serve him for that reason.

If it had occurred before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the law probably would have offered no recourse to Mr. Fisher, the man who was assaulted by the manager.

https://www.courtlistener.com/tex/dn27/fisher-v-carrousel-motor-hotel-inc/

I remembered that the man was African-American. Also, it was in Houston and I knew exactly where the business in question was. That was one reason I remembered.

I see from the cite you provided that Ben Levy represented him. I knew him. He had some questionable legal ethics I heard about when I was in law school in the 1980s that one of our professors made a joke about. He turned into a creepy old man.

It's expensive to put homeless people in jail and have them go to the emergency room because of something easily avoidable if they had shelter and food. Just expand homeless shelters and mental health facility's and make NFL teams pay for their own damn football stadiums. We are such a sick nation,

We don't want to scare anyone with logic.

saying up to 34 people could be fed by Food Not Bombs Orlando(and others) but the 35th guy was always
a police undercover which would cause the arrest of those feeding the homeless. How could you turn away
the last one?

Maybe Jesus did that on the mount, I'm not really sure.

.

What is it with all the people who live in these states?

.

running them out and making it another town's problem, they should do something to solve their own in a dignified way.

there were 3 homeless men living in the woods in a park near a boat ramp on the river that runs along the edge of town. Several local people and a couple of the small Churches in the area were feeding and clothing these men, especially coats and blankets in cold weather.
The mayor of this town (a female Dem) chose to clear out the wooded area of all bushes and thinned the trees in order to run the homeless men out.
I personally would have rather seen our tax dollars spent on something that would help out these homeless instead of tens of thoudsnds of dollars spent destroying the only area they used (it was also easy for them to walk from the park to anywhere they needed).....the money was spent in an attempt to run them out of town.
Also, the city cops will escort any homeless they find to the city limits and tell them to keep moving on to the next town.
The city nor the county has any help for the homeless at all.
A homeless Veteran slept on a cot on our Church doorstep.....we fed him, gave him the cot, it wasn't long before the cops told us we couldn't do this and the veteran had to leave. After some checking we discovered this veteran had over $80,000 being held by an attorney because the veteran had no mailing address. The attorney had held this veteran's money for over 6 years.....we got him a mailing address and a place to live and finally got his money released from the attorney (who greedily drew interest and then charged a % of the $80,000 for 'taking care of' the money.
Why does it seem that those that have plenty are so callous and greedy? One woman I know that dropped food for these men once a week is a non-working mother with a child with spinal bifada....she barely has 2 nickles to rub together but she managed to feed these men. Why do all the wealthy hate the homeless? The mayor owns a huge oil company, the attorney is 4th generation legal beagle in his family, and these 2 people have plenty of money but they act like the great 'unwashed masses' are beneath them.

rarely have a heart. As Steinbeck wrote:

"If youre in trouble, or hurt or need--go to the poor people. Theyre the only ones thatll help--the only ones."

they should be exempt from these fees.

How is this not considered to be government interfering with the free exercise of religion?