This law is telling you, that you do not have the freedom to feed someone who can't afford it themselves. You're telling me that's not ridiculous? Or impeding on your rights and freedoms? Or possibly even hindering you practicing your religion? Charity is a big part of Christianity.
So all those things are fine because it protects all the tourist based corporations working in the city so they can keep rolling in the cash? It seems pretty sick to me. A select few make tons of money which makes the Orlando economy a lot more stable, but people need to starve in the long run?
Let's just sweep up these homeless people and put them where people don't have to see them, it might make tourists feel a little guilty spending all that money on vacation. That's a horrible mindset, what's next just ship them off to "community centers" that way no one ever has to see them again? Give them a nice refreshing gas shower? Then they can be permanently homed in one of FEMA's plastic homes.
I for one want to be able to feed as many people as I want with my own money on public land. Ordinance or law or not, this is just stamping on our rights and it's happening more and more.
The law is telling you that you don't have the freedom to feed someone who can't afford it themselves because tht might hinder tourism which is what local businesses thrive on and what local families need to put food on the table. Those families are WORKING for that. Most of those homeless people are there because they deserve it. I'm not going to feed some lazy piece of shit, or some junky piece of shit, or some screw up piece of shit and make the place swarm with hobos for the sake of being a good Christian, Muslim, or whatever. If he's homeless because he is handicapped or for something justifiable, it's the government's job to house them.
You are also making it seem like all the businesses there are owned by evil men who turn into vampires at night and kill little children. There are small businesses, there are honest businesses, and even those huge ass companies got to be huge ass because someone worked his fucking ass off; you don't just find those around the curb and become the CEO because your nipples are pinker than everybody else's.
I am, in principal, against the sympathy shown to homeless people all around the world. A lot of them are junkies, a lot got there from gambling or some incredibly moronic thing they did along the way. Some don't feel like picking themselves up, dusting themselves off, and getting back into life. There are centers that offer such people jobs, if you don't know. Most just slack around, get drunk off their ass, and expect people to give them their hard earned money. Fuck that.
You're stamping on the cash that's being payed by the tourists to the deserving business owners. They have rights too, stop disregarding everything so you'd have the right tofeed some undeserving nobodies.
If there is a law (in this case a city ordinance) that restricts feeding of more than 25 people in public parks to permit-holders then that's the law.
The police needs to act according to the law. So this is a case of possibly bad legislature, not corruption. I don't think the police is gaining anything from this. The definition of corruption is to misuse official power for their own gain, and here they're just following the law.
I think that's true in this case, but nowadays, especially with steep police/fireman/etc. firings all over the US, it should be taken in to consideration what this does for the police. It gives them a job to keep up appearances so that they don't get cut.
Around here, we now have DUI roadchecks every other night. I've never heard of so many people getting speeding tickets in so short a time, either. While there is a bit of money that comes from both of these things, it's not nearly enough to counteract dwindling budgets. These things are for appearances.
But, again, I think that in this case it's different.
There are, however, some alternative things to consider here. For instance, homelessness has a direct relation to crime. While the premise seems very inhumane, and while the true motives behind the legislature may be so, there are some positive outcomes. The reason I bring this one up, specifically, is to counteract the point of my second paragraph : if homelessness = higher crime, then police would have more to do, so they would not need to keep up appearances. So, at least that argument can be proven a moot point here.
Their problem for not providing for them. When those kids grow up, they can make something out of themselves. Stop making a case for them. There absolutely isn't one.
If the people filming this are part of the feeding crew, then these guys are total assholes. I completely disagree with the law of not allowing feeding of the homeless in public but if they were aware of that law, it just means they are attention-whores more than people that want to help.
Where is the efficiency in distributing food to the homeless if you know you are going to get carted off in the middle of it?
They are not out there to help- they are the just hipsters showing off in the shittiest and dumbest way possible.
The law is telling you that you don't have the freedom to feed someone who can't afford it themselves because tht might hinder tourism which is what local businesses thrive on and what local families need to put food on the table. Those families are WORKING for that. Most of those homeless people are there because they deserve it. I'm not going to feed some lazy piece of shit, or some junky piece of shit, or some screw up piece of shit and make the place swarm with hobos for the sake of being a good Christian, Muslim, or whatever. If he's homeless because he is handicapped or for something justifiable, it's the government's job to house them.
You are also making it seem like all the businesses there are owned by evil men who turn into vampires at night and kill little children. There are small businesses, there are honest businesses, and even those huge ass companies got to be huge ass because someone worked his fucking ass off; you don't just find those around the curb and become the CEO because your nipples are pinker than everybody else's.
I am, in principal, against the sympathy shown to homeless people all around the world. A lot of them are junkies, a lot got there from gambling or some incredibly moronic thing they did along the way. Some don't feel like picking themselves up, dusting themselves off, and getting back into life. There are centers that offer such people jobs, if you don't know. Most just slack around, get drunk off their ass, and expect people to give them their hard earned money. Fuck that.
You're stamping on the cash that's being payed by the tourists to the deserving business owners. They have rights too, stop disregarding everything so you'd have the right tofeed some undeserving nobodies.
Liking or disliking homeless people is a matter of opinion and sure for some it's a touchy subject here. For me though the disgusting part is the trampling of my rights. I can't feed people with my own money in a public place. Would it be different if it wasn't dirty looking homeless people?
What's next we can't have outdoor barbecues at a city park? Or maybe not even have a small picnic with some friends?
You give the government an inch like this and they will end up taking a mile. That's why we have rights, to make sure it doesn't keep going further.
It's not like these people are trespassing on the businesses properties though. So the businesses rights extend to the public park near them? Then that's not really a public park, it should be considered a private park exclusive to the businesses.
What seems more reasonable? People eating in a public park, or people telling people to stop eating in a public place?
A public park simply means a park owned by the community. It does not mean "a park where everyone can do anything they want". Instead it means that the community as a whole can decide what to allow and what to disallow in the parks. In this case the community as a whole (as represented by the city officials) has decided that certain activities in the parks in the city center require a permit so that the damages caused to businesses can be controlled.
I never suggested you can do ANYTHING in a public park of course there are federal laws that prevent drug dealing and use, etc. They also don't seem to be gangs, the only people I saw in that video were pretty average looking people and their children.
Who do you think the city officials are favoring the business owners around the park or the homeless people that would like to have a meal, and the people that want to be charitable? Which group do you think is larger? This doesn't come down to the numbers, and democracy, it comes down to the businesses have more money. Which isn't how our system is supposed to work.
All of that aside this is not directly affecting them running their business, so it's not infringing their rights. This is however directly infringing upon freedom of religion, which is also supposedly protected. In Christianity you're taught:
"No, the kind of fasting I want calls you to free those who are wrongly imprisoned and to stop oppressing those who work for you. Treat them fairly and give them what they earn. I want you to share your food with the hungry and to welcome poor wanderers into your homes. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help. If you do these things, your salvation will come like the dawn. Yes, your healing will come quickly. Your godliness will lead you forward, and the glory of the LORD will protect you from behind” (Isaiah 58:6-8).
So on top of telling me how and where I can spend my money on food to feed the poor, they're telling me I can't share my food with the hungry which is part of a religious belief. Native american tribes are allowed to still take payote, a drug, in their religious ceremonies but I can't feed the poor unless it's in a place that someone determines I'm allowed.
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I'm very protective of my personal rights and freedoms. The founding fathers taught to question anything that infringed on our rights.
The law is telling you that you don't have the freedom to feed someone who can't afford it themselves because tht might hinder tourism which is what local businesses thrive on and what local families need to put food on the table. Those families are WORKING for that. Most of those homeless people are there because they deserve it. I'm not going to feed some lazy piece of shit, or some junky piece of shit, or some screw up piece of shit and make the place swarm with hobos for the sake of being a good Christian, Muslim, or whatever. If he's homeless because he is handicapped or for something justifiable, it's the government's job to house them.
You are also making it seem like all the businesses there are owned by evil men who turn into vampires at night and kill little children. There are small businesses, there are honest businesses, and even those huge ass companies got to be huge ass because someone worked his fucking ass off; you don't just find those around the curb and become the CEO because your nipples are pinker than everybody else's.
I am, in principal, against the sympathy shown to homeless people all around the world. A lot of them are junkies, a lot got there from gambling or some incredibly moronic thing they did along the way. Some don't feel like picking themselves up, dusting themselves off, and getting back into life. There are centers that offer such people jobs, if you don't know. Most just slack around, get drunk off their ass, and expect people to give them their hard earned money. Fuck that.
You're stamping on the cash that's being payed by the tourists to the deserving business owners. They have rights too, stop disregarding everything so you'd have the right tofeed some undeserving nobodies.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
I think that's true in this case, but nowadays, especially with steep police/fireman/etc. firings all over the US, it should be taken in to consideration what this does for the police. It gives them a job to keep up appearances so that they don't get cut.
Around here, we now have DUI roadchecks every other night. I've never heard of so many people getting speeding tickets in so short a time, either. While there is a bit of money that comes from both of these things, it's not nearly enough to counteract dwindling budgets. These things are for appearances.
But, again, I think that in this case it's different.
There are, however, some alternative things to consider here. For instance, homelessness has a direct relation to crime. While the premise seems very inhumane, and while the true motives behind the legislature may be so, there are some positive outcomes. The reason I bring this one up, specifically, is to counteract the point of my second paragraph : if homelessness = higher crime, then police would have more to do, so they would not need to keep up appearances. So, at least that argument can be proven a moot point here.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Where is the efficiency in distributing food to the homeless if you know you are going to get carted off in the middle of it?
They are not out there to help- they are the just hipsters showing off in the shittiest and dumbest way possible.
Jesus Christ...
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
What's next we can't have outdoor barbecues at a city park? Or maybe not even have a small picnic with some friends?
You give the government an inch like this and they will end up taking a mile. That's why we have rights, to make sure it doesn't keep going further.
What seems more reasonable? People eating in a public park, or people telling people to stop eating in a public place?
I never suggested you can do ANYTHING in a public park of course there are federal laws that prevent drug dealing and use, etc. They also don't seem to be gangs, the only people I saw in that video were pretty average looking people and their children.
Who do you think the city officials are favoring the business owners around the park or the homeless people that would like to have a meal, and the people that want to be charitable? Which group do you think is larger? This doesn't come down to the numbers, and democracy, it comes down to the businesses have more money. Which isn't how our system is supposed to work.
All of that aside this is not directly affecting them running their business, so it's not infringing their rights. This is however directly infringing upon freedom of religion, which is also supposedly protected. In Christianity you're taught:
So on top of telling me how and where I can spend my money on food to feed the poor, they're telling me I can't share my food with the hungry which is part of a religious belief. Native american tribes are allowed to still take payote, a drug, in their religious ceremonies but I can't feed the poor unless it's in a place that someone determines I'm allowed.
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I'm very protective of my personal rights and freedoms. The founding fathers taught to question anything that infringed on our rights.
I'm not risking getting banned again. But almost everything I wanted to say has already been said.
Hey!