Las Vegas criminalized giving food to even a single transient in city parks.
The ACLU sued because it violated constitutional protections of free speech, right to assembly and right to practice one's religion.
Advocates for the homeless feared it wouldn't be long before other cities passed similar laws. As it happens, they were right.
Already, the cities of Dallas, Fort Myers, Fl, Gainesville, Fl, Wilmington, NC, Atlanta&Santa Monica, CA., have laws restricting or outright prohibiting the feeding of the homeless in parks .
After a law that banned panhandling was struck down by the courts, Orlando FL tried to discourage aggressive beggars by obliging them to carry ID cards, and later by confining them to 3-by-15-foot "panhandling zones" painted in blue on sidewalks downtown. Despite these laws, the number of people living on the streets of the Orlando metro area swelled, from roughly 5,000 in 1999 to an estimated 8,500 today, dwarfing the city's shelter capacity.
2007-02-03 13:57:20 · 9 answers · asked by Akkita 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
My question is about the ACLU saying that banning feeding the homeless violated constitutional protections of -- right to practice one's religion and free speech?
PS - the cities provide shelters to feed the homeless - they just don't want the homeless fed in the parks or washing their laundry in the lakes.......
2007-02-04 06:03:32 · update #1
where should the homeless go. some commit crimes just to have shelter. if cities keep passing laws,then the taxpayers will support the homeless in jail. at least in jail they won't be homeless,cold or hungry. as it is just those that want to help the homeless do,with laws all will help them. some of the panhandlers are scamming people though. we are getting too many senseless laws.
2007-02-03 14:08:46 · answer #1 · answered by b 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Amish are generally opposed, as a matter of religious principle, to all forms of government dependence. It is possible, depending on the facts of the case, that there could be an argument that posited these homeless dudes were trying to the lives of devout Amish, yet were systematically persecuted because society has forced technological change upon them, so they were squatting on public land in protest until they could regain the benefits entitled to Americans under the original Homestead Act.
Otherwise, the whole thing is a bunch of BS.
Then again, if they are living in Las Vegas, it is totally impossible to live an existence without electricity. These are lazy bums who ACLU lawyers recruited for opportunistic reasons.
2007-02-07 17:04:56 · answer #2 · answered by Cagey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it could sound stupid, yet i gurantee you, the 1st homeless guy or woman that gets nutrition poisoning will sue the hell out of the resturant to purpose and get some funds. he won't be able to sue the trashcan. I too have puzzled this, and that i totally comprehend the place you're coming from, I wish we lived in a society the place people might desire to be easy and do issues wisely, yet with such threats of complaints teeming on each corner, all of us has to do what they might to video demonstrate their backs, and that's the sorrowful fact of it.
2016-10-01 09:37:36 · answer #3 · answered by gerking 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like a winner. here's why? in order to determine if someone is homeless you have to ask. if a cop asks it is a fourth amendment violation. probably a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments also. that's a case the ACLU will consider.
2007-02-03 14:57:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
it's a valid constitutional argument...i've read of different church groups who have challenged similar laws of the grounds that they violate the first amendment's protection of free exercise of religion-what surprised me is that more 'christian' churches haven't joined them...after all, as Christ told peter...'if you love me, feed my sheep'
2007-02-03 14:27:36 · answer #5 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that if you are going to ban, in parks, the feeding of people who don't earn enough money to buy food, then you have to ban feeding your children.
2007-02-03 14:06:49 · answer #6 · answered by firefly 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
sorry no matter what state I am in if I see a person hungry I WILL give them food. F**K the LAW!
2007-02-03 14:01:43 · answer #7 · answered by glamour04111 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm all for...wait a minute, what in the heck is the question?
2007-02-03 14:10:14 · answer #8 · answered by mattzcoz 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'll take "WTF? Is this a question?" for 200, Alex.
2007-02-03 14:03:31 · answer #9 · answered by Crybaby Conservatives 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋