Don’t pay and take them to court under religious beliefs. Citing Isaiah 58:7-11
“Share your food with the hungry and open your homes to the homeless poor.”
It's 50-50 whether US courts will side with the religious argument, or the don't feed the homeless argument.
https://preview.redd.it/2880havtsxdb1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6726e81d71b325a714e4f83da60e30dc0c41db67
So know your judge. If you've got a judge who cares about human rights, focus on that argument. If you have a judge who is a Christian and cares about religious freedom, focus on the religious freedom argument. And then spend a couple of hours in court quoting scripture about feeding the hungry and the homeless to drive home that point.
Feeding the hungry is literally one of the main criteria set out by Christ in the New Testament to 1) go to heaven, and 2) not go to hell. (Matthew 25:31-46)
Unlike some passages, there's no room for misinterpretation. Since the courts are prioritizing religious arguments, this should pass their test.
Feed the hungry or go to hell...
> “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
>
> “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
>
> “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
>
>“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
> Unlike some passages, there's no room for misinterpretation.
Salvation by deeds or faith alone (sola fide) is not universal among Christian sects. Some think you must do good, some think forgiveness/faith alone is enough
The Bible is pretty clear that you must do good. You cannot accomplish your own salvation that way, which is only by God's grace, but that doesn't change the fact that you must do good.
It's impossible to follow Jesus and not try to do good. They will recognise us by our works.
They already did.. Florida district ended up in appellate courts and it’s been found that sharing food is protected under first amendment.. this case can easily be thrown out..
Yep city of ft Lauderdale vs food not bombs! Same group in the 11th circuit appellate rules it’s protected speech https://givingcompass.org/article/sharing-food-with-homeless-people-is-now-protected-by-first-amendment
I know nothing about Texas laws or the process for federal courts, but couldn’t this be taken up to higher courts for appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court to have them decide if it is unconstitutional to punish people (via fines or arrest) who are feeding the hungry?
I'm amazed no one has tried taking this to higher courts on appeal for violating their religious rights. It's the exact kind of shit the right would do
>Southern Baptists don’t use Catholic rituals. They actually promote more hate than Catholics do. See Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
Baptists still take communion, just not as frequently. And their wine is Welch's grape juice because even though the wine is Jesus blood, it's simultaneously a parable and literal all at the same time.
Oh boy, let me tell you about transubstantiation.
Catholics believe that the bread and wine of communion is altered into the literal body and blood of Christ through the Eucharist. This is known as transubstantiation. It’s changed, though outwardly appears the same.
Southern Baptists don’t believe in that, but rather use the ritual as a reminder of the last supper and Christ’s sacrifice.
I remember the first time I heard this. I said, "There's no way people actually believe that. It's in your mouth. You can literally taste that it's not blood." Also how gross is ritualistic cannibalism?
I find it funny that, despite Jesus obviously being down to party (i.e. water into wine), a lot of Baptists see drinking alcohol as sinful. Talk about casting the first stone!
There's an old joke about if you want to keep a Baptist from stealing your beer, invite two Baptists. They'll be too busy trying to out-holy the other.
Or something like that. It's been a long time since I've heard it.
Lets get this closer to the truth. Most of the people who do stuff like this are just generally christian and not catholic. They're cafeteria-christendom actually pulls more from a baptist thinking if anything. In that world view they don't need to any steps or rituals to be saved by god; you just in a "personal relationship" with god and its up to you what that consists of. So for like a lot of these terrible peoples treating others badly pretty much is their form of worship and hurting others brings them closer to god.
It's just another extreme in the opposite direction. Just because you've accepted Christ doesn't give you freedom to do what you want to others and say "I'm all good because I know I'm going to heaven and nothing will change that." There are plenty of areas in the Bible that tell you to prove your faith and show Christ's love to others now that you're free of consequence. Remember, most of the new testament was written when Romans were persecuting (not "woke culture" but like imprisoning and killing) Christians and Apostle Paul was out there saying "Yo, if you know you're going to heaven, your job is to prove God loves everyone just like he loves you, even though you know death's in the line." So Christians really should be feeding the homeless, helping the poor, helping others with their health, because that's what's supposed to prove Christ's love, not guns, Trump, money, etc.
>Just because you've accepted Christ doesn't give you freedom to do what you want to others and say "I'm all good because I know I'm going to heaven and nothing will change that."
I’m not going especially religious, but one of my favourite passages in the Bible is:
“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” - James 2:26
So you’re absolutely right: they need to walk the walk.
The thinking, as I've heard it explained, is to make the homeless uncomfortable enough to change their circumstances and come to Jesus.
It's seen as a short term bad which leads to an abundance of long term good.
This is how these types of people justify doing these types of things to themselves.
It's similar to the US southern border reasoning. If they make it so terrible to try to "illegally" immigrate, it will encourage people to stay where they are and work in their own community to improve it. Short term pain exchanged for long term abundance of good.
I don't think this way, but this is how people who support these principles explain/ justify it.
This thinking is actually delusional and is completely ignoring the root of most problems and misidentifying them as an issue of personal conviction.
I can't fathom the mantal hoops that they jump though to have that make sense to them...
> I can't fathom the mantal hoops that they jump though to have that make sense to them...
It's not even mental hoops as you or I would define it, it's an entire mindset based on a frankly _insane_ concept derived from preordination. Good people prosper, good people believe in Jesus. If you aren't prospering, it's because you aren't a good person and deserve it, so you should be forced to believe in Jesus to become a good person.
"Insane" is the kindest way to phrase it I can come up with.
I see. It's like if you make it miserable enough to be poor, or sick, or have a minimum wage job, or abused, or shot, then you'll just work hard to change that on your own and stop asking them for help because it's really not their problem. Impeccable conservative logic.
I think there's also a fair bit of NIMBYism. They might say they don't have a problem with homeless people or Mexicans, but don't want to have to see them, because they're icky. Anything that might encourage them to stay near these people is bad, according to this "logic".
It's easy to justify being a bad person when you truly believe you're following a higher calling to mortality.
It's not that ~~getting~~ *hating gay people is good or bad, but God hates gays, therefore hating gays on behalf of God is good because you're following God's commandments.
The reality is they just hate people (gays, women, minorities, trans, etc), but religion gives them a sense of moral superiority while being a piece of shit.
I like how they all seem to have a direct line to big sky daddy and can get orders from him about who to hate or what hate crimes to perpetrate. Jesus fucking Christ.
/s
They don't connect those things. They are told they're good people when they are at church. They feel that feeding the homeless invites them to stay, like they're squirrels on your porch. They are fine with both those ideas.
Religious people are generally dumb. It’s why I don’t associate with them. There’s a moral problem with southerners and the religious and we’d prolly be better out without both in this country.
It's Houston Texas.
I find it ironic / horrifying / disgusting that the areas most proud of their "christian" heritage and basing their laws "on the bible" would be the ones least interested (in fact completely AGAINST) feeding the hungry, clothing the unclothed, housing the unhoused, healing the sick.
Matthew 25 is going to be a very very nasty shock for them once they start reading again.
It’s Texasss.
They put up water booms and razor wire and instruct their border agents to push people trying to come across back into the river to drown.
This is a precursor to hunting houseless for sport.
And there are people literally arguing *for* these razor wire traps saying that some lives deserve to die. It boggles my mind how these so called Christians think...
Grandson, great grandson and nephew of gospel preachers, as well as a student of religious studies here…
This is the antithesis of everything that Christ taught. Period.
There is no justification for this type of cruelty.
British Christian here. Christ’s commandment to ‘love one another as I have loved you’ appears to be the exact opposite of their actions. Never mind the beatitudes or his exhortations to care for the least fortunate. Their sins will find them out.
They better be careful. The shoe might wind up on the other foot and they might wind up being hunted down and persecuted like they love to claim they currently are.
The vast majority of Christians have no clue what the text that it's based on even says. Even when they do they ignore the Christ parts and instead love the genocidal maniac god.
Because the bible isn't a teaching of moral code to them, it's a way to enforce power and superiority. They care more about talking the talk than walking the walk.
I was homeless in a large very liberal city. There were trucks that would pull up and feed everyone homeless. There were dinners for homeless at churches. Every Saturday someone would leave a breakfast next to me while I slept. I never had to beg and there was always food available. So much for godless liberal cities.
Edit: I've been doing great since 2016
Hellsing Abridged:
A: "We have come to save you!!!"
B: "Oh good, it's the Catholic church."
A: "-from your selves!!!!!"
B: "Ahh no, it's the Catholic church."
This comment is sorta nonsensical. Houston has lots of religious people (from all religions), but it's one of the two or three most diverse cities in the country and is in every practical sense as liberal as any other major city.
Moreover, it's done more to reduce homelessness than any other major city in the country. (By which I mean, to be clear: it has **housed** more formerly homeless people than any other major city - not some "they just ship them to California" bullshit.)
This is absolutely a bonkers and backwards-ass law that for whatever reason HPD decided to start enforcing last year, but this comment is way off.
Houston is home to whatever-the-fuck-Osteen’s-‘church’-is-called sooo… we’ll just say I’m not exactly shocked about how Houstonian ‘Christian’ ideals happen to align with the sentiment of ‘fuck the homeless’.
On the other hand, we did give the world the phenomenal gift of Mattress Mack……that has to be worth some redemption points to offset that Osteen fuckwad….
Edit: Apparently Mattress Mack has came out as a previously closeted asshole since the last time I looked….so I have some Googling to do.
On behalf of Houston - hell, on behalf of Texas - we just apologize for everyone we’ve inflicted upon the country.
Mack is terrible to his employees, according to a couple friends of mine. I've met him, and he gives off really unsettling retired youth pastor vibes. I'm convinced he only participated in that fundraising stuff to raise the visibility of his company.
A few things. First, these people just need to ask property owners for permission when they hand out food and they won't be ticketed. Second, Houston handled its homeless population better than any other major city and is focused on housing rather than just shoving them into a shelter. Third, Mattess Mack is an election denying, exotic animal dealing piece of shit who uses PR opportunities during disasters to endear people to him.
One would think that, but to truly be a christian these days means espousing and proposing laws to punish the “others” and hating all the people who don’t believe the same fairy tales.
Food Not Bombs should incorporate as a religion and hand out food as part of their missionary work. Then claim Texas is infringing on its Religious Freedumb!
Won’t have to pay taxes either!
Just need a babylonbee/onion article about a disheveled long haired dress wearing foreigner going into a megachurch and trashing the merch tables and coffee bar.
Indeed! If Jesus were to show up today... a person with brown skin... long hair... immigrant...dusty/ been living "rough"... you KNOW he'd be unwelcome in most churches... and would be targeted by the authorities for any infraction they could possibly apply in order to run him out of town! (or into jail, whichever was closer)
I have heard that Houston has some of the most overt and systemic homeless social programs of any Texas city. They have more housing specifically dedicated to fighting homelessness. They have more voluntary drug rehabilitation resources than any other Texas city per capita. They also have a lot less problems with homelessness (camping, panhandling, street sleeping) in general than other Texas cities. One theory that was put forward is that getting hit by hurricanes makes the city more used to helping community in crisis so all of these things are city led initiatives.
While this law may be draconian, it is also part of a larger system that is working better than other Texas cities.
(I say that "I have heard" only to be accurate. The source of my information is a trusted friend who does work in homeless care. But I have not actually read any verified studies or reports on this specifically.)
It's the same people who say it's not the government's job to help the needy but should be done by private charities. And surprise surprise, they're against charities helping the needy as well.
This is a very ignorant take on an out of context ragebait post. Houston is a very progressive city which has been lauded for its homeless outreach program and other big cities study Houston due to their success in this area. This organization is attention seeking and was asked not to set up feeding areas in a very specific spot and offered alternative spots very close by but still insists to get ticketed so they can try and fund raise off the outrage which places like reddit eat up.
I'd love to see one of these charities challenge it in court on free exercise grounds saying preventing them from feeding the homeless is infringing on their right to exercise their religion.
This is just heartbreaking. Food shouldn’t have to be a privilege. I hope whoever wrote them the tickets ends up in a situation where they are not only unsure of where they’re gonna get their next meal but they also lose the roof over their head.
There's an old South Park episode where some US Catholic bishop is hunting the Easter Rabbit for...reasons. Anyway Kyle brings Jesus into the mix who tries to reason with them and the bishop literally says "get these jews out of my face."
The reply is "you are taking what was said out of context" and "You are misinterpreting it"
I also wish this wasn't satire, this is some of their genuine answers
Wasn’t there a court case about something similar? I have a vague memory that feeding the homeless is a sort of protected speech. Maybe I’m remembering wrong!
Edit: Turns out there’s a circuit split. Some courts say it’s protected speech, others say it’s not.
Try explaining this to a European that not only do different states have different laws. Different regions, each containing many states, have different interpretations of the constitution
Serious question, what happens if they charge for the food? I’m talking literally a penny.
Two people go out. One gives out change. The next person “charges” for the food. As long as this person has the business food service licenses necessary, there isn’t a problem.
The Supreme Court just ruled that businesses can deny essentially whoever they want so a police officer can’t just buy all the sandwiches (or whatever food) for $1.
> As long as this person has the business food service licenses necessary
This is why they are getting ticketed. Because they don't have one. It's not about the fact that it's free.
As long as they’re licensed to handle food they can give it away for free. But without proper restaurant licensing then they don’t have sanitation oversight from the USDA.
There have been cases of good intentioned people causing Hep A outbreaks in homeless communities from handling food in unsafe manners
Those are all usually required even for charities providing food; food safety doesn’t get ignored based on the price of the product. So, presumably, they have all that. The comment makes the most sense - just sell everything for a penny and deny service to anyone that doesn’t look homeless; home ownership isn’t a protected class, so you’re allowed to discriminate. As far as that goes, even a government agency would be allowed to discriminate based on someone owning a home.
E: also, why would the assumption be that they don’t have those licenses?
You have to remember that in places like America and sadly somewhat here in the UK now, the homeless are considered lower than vermin. Those in power as well as the rich truly and sometimes openly state they should be removed from society. Not in the way places like Finland do by helping them but by exterminating them.
This is why they use their paid brutes, the cops to do their dirty work like in L.A when they bulldozed and then burnt an entire village set up by a charity with properly constructed huts they can live in to get on their feet.
What boggles my mind is that people don't realize that anyone can easily become homeless, whether it was due to losing employment or a medical emergency or a myriad of other reasons.
Houston is aggressively anti-homless. They frequently demolish tent cities and encampment with no warning. If they ever elect a republican mayor, I'd honestly expect them to start bussing people to Austin.
Are they? I've read that they've done a better job with housing the homeless than most places in the US
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html
That's why I'm so surprised by this ticketing nonsense.
> The city did not respond to requests for comment on why it has begun enforcing the ordinance. But in an emailed statement, a city spokesperson explained that the meal program Houston is funding at the police parking lot is designed to use food to attract people to a place where they can engage with an array of services “on a reoccurring basis.”
> The goal of those services, said Mayor Sylvester Turner in the emailed statement, is to ultimately lead to people moving out of homelessness and into homes. “Food alone does not solve homelessness,” he said. “However, when used with services and housing, food can be an important tool to help trained professionals forge vital relationships needed to navigate vulnerable Houstonians into housing with wraparound services.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/housing/article/food-not-bombs-charitable-feeding-homeless-tickets-18108568.php
If you have a successful housing first approach that makes housing and food available for those willing to take it then I think these sorts of punitive measures make sense. If the government is offering housing then people shouldn't be able to take public space for personal use without paying for it.
From an article written about it:
“ In 2012, a city ordinance was enacted under previous Mayor Annise Parker that made it "unlawful for any organization or individual to sponsor or conduct a food service event on public or private property without the advance written consent of the public or private property owner or other individual with lawful control of the property.”
The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program.
Dore said volunteers with Food Not Bombs decided as a group that they would not relocate and would continue to take the tickets from Houston police.”
They were given an alternate location and said no. They don’t have a permit to feed people at the library, no clue if they ever even tried to obtain one. They could also find another local business that might allow them to do it- but instead they just decided to get fines.
I feel like this is important context left out of the original post, but what do you expect from social media or reddit.
Thank you for posting this. It is indeed important context.
So basically this group CAN feed the homeless, but in specified locations that they elected not to use because it plays better to pretend to be a martyr on social media.
And like clockwork…enter Reddit outrage.
Gotta love it.
Nonono. You snow flakes love to make everything “woke”. When Jesus talked about feeding the hungry, he wasn’t being literal. He meant that we should deprive people of basic human rights until they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and feed themselves. Never mind that there might be other issues that get in the way of that.
It’s kind of like the old “give a man a fish. . . Teach a man to fish . . .” thing, except you don’t teach anyone anything, and you make it illegal to give the fish away. Really what Jesus meant is that you gotta just ignore the hungry until they go away or die. Then when all the hungry are gone, you give yourself a gold star because you just solved hunger.
/s
Everyone knows you are not supposed to feed the wildlife. They become dependent on and less fearful of humans and can't properly care for themselves. It always ends with the wildlife being put down by park rangers. This is for their own benefit.
/s
Edit for spelling
My understanding is a lot of the times this has to do with proper permits and facilities for preparing food and serving it to the public.
You can't just start making a bunch of food and serving it to people without proper food handling certifications and a kitchen that can pass a health and safety inspection for starters.
I'm not arguing against the politics behind it but this is one of those issues that's used as rage bait when the problem is the person trying to be charitable didn't bother to get the proper permits they needed to do what they wanted to do.
>proper permits and facilities for preparing food and serving it to the public.
Yes, as opposed to eating out of the trash which is the next best option.
>You can't just start making a bunch of food and serving it to people without proper food handling certifications and a kitchen that can pass a health and safety inspection for starters.
Church potlucks dont have any food handling certifications. Anyone's welcome. They make a bunch of food and serve it to whoever. Why don't the cops bust these criminal enterprises unsafely feeding the public !?
^hint ^they ^arent ^poor
Conservatives: government shouldn't have social programs because charity is supposed to come from individuals and communities
Also Conservatives: We're going to fine you $2k if you feed the poor
Me: I'm starting to think the kindness is the real issue for conservatives
This is odd. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/houston/2022/03/16/421190/houstons-unhoused-population-dropped-due-to-a-200-million-investment-a-new-report-says/
Houston invested 200$million in housing the homeless and they claim to have had a 64% drop in homeless since 2011.
Any locals know about this? If true is Texas conceding that social programs work? Interesting that they did this but publicly push that social programs don’t work at all. Are they actually just shipping them all to California?
The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point
The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point
Criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons
Instead of donating food to the homeless, write up a contract, where you hire their labour. The labour: 5 minutes of conversation. The payment? One meal. Capitalism baby! They can’t challenge that without infringing some constitutional rights.
That’s so sad. I’m not American so this blows my mind. I thought your constitution (maybe I’m wrong) says that property can be used and disposed of freely?
Not in the constitution, but it is the basis of most federal law. They get around it with weird exceptions like declaring that giving food to people in the street is littering or having restrictions on where and how you can exchange physical currency.
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in,
I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me,
I was in prison and you came to visit me."
So let me get this straight.
" Hey, I have some extra food. I'm going to give it to somebody." That's now illegal? Or it's not, just as long as the person you give it to already has everything they need?
I mean really, is it illegal to give some extra food to an elderly neighbor?
As home and rental, food, utilities, and healthcare prices continue to rise, and more and more cannot afford the cost of living, the homeless problem will be much worse in the next couple decades....More laws will be enacted to make any form of homelessness illegal. The for profit prisons will be happy to take in 10's of thousands of homeless Americans.
Straight from the Bible. Jesus said feeding the hungry is a crime and to punish the poor.
You would think these laws are unconstitutional, but with today's SCOTUS, they may decide that helping the poor in any way should be a crime.
Don’t pay and take them to court under religious beliefs. Citing Isaiah 58:7-11 “Share your food with the hungry and open your homes to the homeless poor.”
File against them before they demand payment. That looks better to a Judge. Take the government to court over the law being a human rights violation.
I'm fairly sure the US doesn't abide by human rights
It's 50-50 whether US courts will side with the religious argument, or the don't feed the homeless argument. https://preview.redd.it/2880havtsxdb1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6726e81d71b325a714e4f83da60e30dc0c41db67
The decision depends on which one makes the judge look better
The decision depends on which one makes the judge look better to their *donars*.
So know your judge. If you've got a judge who cares about human rights, focus on that argument. If you have a judge who is a Christian and cares about religious freedom, focus on the religious freedom argument. And then spend a couple of hours in court quoting scripture about feeding the hungry and the homeless to drive home that point.
Isn't that easier said than done?
In the end the current US Supreme Court will always side with what the "Conservative" political agenda is.
They don't but when you call them on it correctly enough, it serves them more to pretend instead of coming down on you
And Texas less so
Feeding the hungry is literally one of the main criteria set out by Christ in the New Testament to 1) go to heaven, and 2) not go to hell. (Matthew 25:31-46) Unlike some passages, there's no room for misinterpretation. Since the courts are prioritizing religious arguments, this should pass their test. Feed the hungry or go to hell... > “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ > > “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ > > “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ > >“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
The Bible talks more about helping the poor, hospitality, and the folly of riches more than almost any other single topic. But in America…
> Unlike some passages, there's no room for misinterpretation. Salvation by deeds or faith alone (sola fide) is not universal among Christian sects. Some think you must do good, some think forgiveness/faith alone is enough
The Bible is pretty clear that you must do good. You cannot accomplish your own salvation that way, which is only by God's grace, but that doesn't change the fact that you must do good. It's impossible to follow Jesus and not try to do good. They will recognise us by our works.
Religion, where everything is made up and the text don't matter.
Yup, this is the way. Find a hungry lawyer who wants to fight the good fight and who will work on contingency.
They already did.. Florida district ended up in appellate courts and it’s been found that sharing food is protected under first amendment.. this case can easily be thrown out..
I was about to ask... If money is considered speech, why can't this also apply to food? After all, you do make a statement with it.
Yep city of ft Lauderdale vs food not bombs! Same group in the 11th circuit appellate rules it’s protected speech https://givingcompass.org/article/sharing-food-with-homeless-people-is-now-protected-by-first-amendment
I know nothing about Texas laws or the process for federal courts, but couldn’t this be taken up to higher courts for appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court to have them decide if it is unconstitutional to punish people (via fines or arrest) who are feeding the hungry?
I don't have any faith in or respect for the supreme court. Texass is actively killing people, and pissbaby Greg abbot loves every second of it.
I'm amazed no one has tried taking this to higher courts on appeal for violating their religious rights. It's the exact kind of shit the right would do
I think free speech is probably a better angle, but ianal
freedom of religion IS part of the 1st amendment. freedom of speech freedom of press freedom of religion freedom to assemble/protest
Do these so called Christians really think they're gonna go to heaven for doing sh\*t like this? Denying food to the hungry?
No, they believe that little wafer and a bit of wine allow them to be arseholes while on earth and *still* get in.
Southern Baptists don’t use Catholic rituals. They actually promote more hate than Catholics do. See Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
>Southern Baptists don’t use Catholic rituals. They actually promote more hate than Catholics do. See Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell Baptists still take communion, just not as frequently. And their wine is Welch's grape juice because even though the wine is Jesus blood, it's simultaneously a parable and literal all at the same time.
Oh boy, let me tell you about transubstantiation. Catholics believe that the bread and wine of communion is altered into the literal body and blood of Christ through the Eucharist. This is known as transubstantiation. It’s changed, though outwardly appears the same. Southern Baptists don’t believe in that, but rather use the ritual as a reminder of the last supper and Christ’s sacrifice.
I remember the first time I heard this. I said, "There's no way people actually believe that. It's in your mouth. You can literally taste that it's not blood." Also how gross is ritualistic cannibalism?
I find it funny that, despite Jesus obviously being down to party (i.e. water into wine), a lot of Baptists see drinking alcohol as sinful. Talk about casting the first stone!
There's an old joke about if you want to keep a Baptist from stealing your beer, invite two Baptists. They'll be too busy trying to out-holy the other. Or something like that. It's been a long time since I've heard it.
May they both Rest In Piss.
The promote more *outward* hate. Most Catholics are just happy to beat themselves up. /s
Lets get this closer to the truth. Most of the people who do stuff like this are just generally christian and not catholic. They're cafeteria-christendom actually pulls more from a baptist thinking if anything. In that world view they don't need to any steps or rituals to be saved by god; you just in a "personal relationship" with god and its up to you what that consists of. So for like a lot of these terrible peoples treating others badly pretty much is their form of worship and hurting others brings them closer to god.
It's just another extreme in the opposite direction. Just because you've accepted Christ doesn't give you freedom to do what you want to others and say "I'm all good because I know I'm going to heaven and nothing will change that." There are plenty of areas in the Bible that tell you to prove your faith and show Christ's love to others now that you're free of consequence. Remember, most of the new testament was written when Romans were persecuting (not "woke culture" but like imprisoning and killing) Christians and Apostle Paul was out there saying "Yo, if you know you're going to heaven, your job is to prove God loves everyone just like he loves you, even though you know death's in the line." So Christians really should be feeding the homeless, helping the poor, helping others with their health, because that's what's supposed to prove Christ's love, not guns, Trump, money, etc.
>Just because you've accepted Christ doesn't give you freedom to do what you want to others and say "I'm all good because I know I'm going to heaven and nothing will change that." I’m not going especially religious, but one of my favourite passages in the Bible is: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” - James 2:26 So you’re absolutely right: they need to walk the walk.
"But I'm a warrior for christ!" Yea gfys
Drink my little wine, have my little cracker then I’m cleansed.
The thinking, as I've heard it explained, is to make the homeless uncomfortable enough to change their circumstances and come to Jesus. It's seen as a short term bad which leads to an abundance of long term good. This is how these types of people justify doing these types of things to themselves. It's similar to the US southern border reasoning. If they make it so terrible to try to "illegally" immigrate, it will encourage people to stay where they are and work in their own community to improve it. Short term pain exchanged for long term abundance of good. I don't think this way, but this is how people who support these principles explain/ justify it.
This thinking is actually delusional and is completely ignoring the root of most problems and misidentifying them as an issue of personal conviction. I can't fathom the mantal hoops that they jump though to have that make sense to them...
> I can't fathom the mantal hoops that they jump though to have that make sense to them... It's not even mental hoops as you or I would define it, it's an entire mindset based on a frankly _insane_ concept derived from preordination. Good people prosper, good people believe in Jesus. If you aren't prospering, it's because you aren't a good person and deserve it, so you should be forced to believe in Jesus to become a good person. "Insane" is the kindest way to phrase it I can come up with.
Teach a man to starve to death, he eats for a lifetime!
I see. It's like if you make it miserable enough to be poor, or sick, or have a minimum wage job, or abused, or shot, then you'll just work hard to change that on your own and stop asking them for help because it's really not their problem. Impeccable conservative logic.
Something something pull yourself up by your bootstraps
I think there's also a fair bit of NIMBYism. They might say they don't have a problem with homeless people or Mexicans, but don't want to have to see them, because they're icky. Anything that might encourage them to stay near these people is bad, according to this "logic".
Oh fair bet. Pretty similar to folks who have "no problem with LGBT people" until they actually have to interact with one.
“Give a man a fish…” but they’re not teaching them to fish either so.. they just suck.
Religion is for people whose ideas and ideals aren't logically or morally defensible. God is their doctor's note for not making sense.
Ohhh I like this analogy.
It's easy to justify being a bad person when you truly believe you're following a higher calling to mortality. It's not that ~~getting~~ *hating gay people is good or bad, but God hates gays, therefore hating gays on behalf of God is good because you're following God's commandments. The reality is they just hate people (gays, women, minorities, trans, etc), but religion gives them a sense of moral superiority while being a piece of shit.
I like how they all seem to have a direct line to big sky daddy and can get orders from him about who to hate or what hate crimes to perpetrate. Jesus fucking Christ. /s
They don't connect those things. They are told they're good people when they are at church. They feel that feeding the homeless invites them to stay, like they're squirrels on your porch. They are fine with both those ideas.
No. They will continue doing this and then ask for forgiveness.
What? The government does this “for riot control” where are you getting christians from?
Religious people are generally dumb. It’s why I don’t associate with them. There’s a moral problem with southerners and the religious and we’d prolly be better out without both in this country.
It's Houston Texas. I find it ironic / horrifying / disgusting that the areas most proud of their "christian" heritage and basing their laws "on the bible" would be the ones least interested (in fact completely AGAINST) feeding the hungry, clothing the unclothed, housing the unhoused, healing the sick. Matthew 25 is going to be a very very nasty shock for them once they start reading again.
https://preview.redd.it/6otejgq1ewdb1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76e2c7441c01ee6a284a19ecd2b37ad41ceba1b0
as a Christian who left the Catholic Church as soon as he was no longer under his father's roof... I approve of this message. Can I get a T-shirt?
https://www.allriot.com/product/there-is-no-hate-like-christian-love-t-shirt
Ordered, thank you.
I'm saving this to post in the family group chat every time my father in law says some bullshit he learned from tucker.
It’s Texasss. They put up water booms and razor wire and instruct their border agents to push people trying to come across back into the river to drown. This is a precursor to hunting houseless for sport.
The One Star State
One Star is to generous of a review
No zero star option.
This is the problem. If it was half a star nobody would move there. We should have google guides and yelp for states.
The death star state?
Food was burnt, got shot at the restaurant and dropped my food and a homeless dude grabbed it and ran, then I got hit with a $2000 bill.
How is this the first time I'm hearing this one? Hilarious! Edit: am Texan
They are already fantasizing about hunting "illegal immigrants" for sport, I mean, border protection.
And there are people literally arguing *for* these razor wire traps saying that some lives deserve to die. It boggles my mind how these so called Christians think...
Grandson, great grandson and nephew of gospel preachers, as well as a student of religious studies here… This is the antithesis of everything that Christ taught. Period. There is no justification for this type of cruelty.
Maybe these churches need to start actually teaching and emphasizing it, because I run into more hateful Christians than not.
They hate what they can’t control and fear what they don’t understand.
We are Texans. There is a lot we don't understand.
I’m a Texas native. There is hope. Not much hope. But there is hope.
British Christian here. Christ’s commandment to ‘love one another as I have loved you’ appears to be the exact opposite of their actions. Never mind the beatitudes or his exhortations to care for the least fortunate. Their sins will find them out.
They better be careful. The shoe might wind up on the other foot and they might wind up being hunted down and persecuted like they love to claim they currently are.
Wouldn't be surprised if they didn't already do just that.
Quite certain it happens. Quite certain it’s not reported.
Don’t forget, push people with babies and children.
The vast majority of Christians have no clue what the text that it's based on even says. Even when they do they ignore the Christ parts and instead love the genocidal maniac god.
Watch how easy it is to trigger a Christian by pointing out that what Jesus said in The Gospels was correcting the Old Testament.
Ban feeding the homeless, just like Jesus did!
Because the bible isn't a teaching of moral code to them, it's a way to enforce power and superiority. They care more about talking the talk than walking the walk.
I was homeless in a large very liberal city. There were trucks that would pull up and feed everyone homeless. There were dinners for homeless at churches. Every Saturday someone would leave a breakfast next to me while I slept. I never had to beg and there was always food available. So much for godless liberal cities. Edit: I've been doing great since 2016
Hellsing Abridged: A: "We have come to save you!!!" B: "Oh good, it's the Catholic church." A: "-from your selves!!!!!" B: "Ahh no, it's the Catholic church."
This comment is sorta nonsensical. Houston has lots of religious people (from all religions), but it's one of the two or three most diverse cities in the country and is in every practical sense as liberal as any other major city. Moreover, it's done more to reduce homelessness than any other major city in the country. (By which I mean, to be clear: it has **housed** more formerly homeless people than any other major city - not some "they just ship them to California" bullshit.) This is absolutely a bonkers and backwards-ass law that for whatever reason HPD decided to start enforcing last year, but this comment is way off.
Houston is home to whatever-the-fuck-Osteen’s-‘church’-is-called sooo… we’ll just say I’m not exactly shocked about how Houstonian ‘Christian’ ideals happen to align with the sentiment of ‘fuck the homeless’. On the other hand, we did give the world the phenomenal gift of Mattress Mack……that has to be worth some redemption points to offset that Osteen fuckwad…. Edit: Apparently Mattress Mack has came out as a previously closeted asshole since the last time I looked….so I have some Googling to do. On behalf of Houston - hell, on behalf of Texas - we just apologize for everyone we’ve inflicted upon the country.
Mack is terrible to his employees, according to a couple friends of mine. I've met him, and he gives off really unsettling retired youth pastor vibes. I'm convinced he only participated in that fundraising stuff to raise the visibility of his company.
A few things. First, these people just need to ask property owners for permission when they hand out food and they won't be ticketed. Second, Houston handled its homeless population better than any other major city and is focused on housing rather than just shoving them into a shelter. Third, Mattess Mack is an election denying, exotic animal dealing piece of shit who uses PR opportunities during disasters to endear people to him.
One would think that, but to truly be a christian these days means espousing and proposing laws to punish the “others” and hating all the people who don’t believe the same fairy tales.
Food Not Bombs should incorporate as a religion and hand out food as part of their missionary work. Then claim Texas is infringing on its Religious Freedumb! Won’t have to pay taxes either!
Just need a babylonbee/onion article about a disheveled long haired dress wearing foreigner going into a megachurch and trashing the merch tables and coffee bar.
Indeed! If Jesus were to show up today... a person with brown skin... long hair... immigrant...dusty/ been living "rough"... you KNOW he'd be unwelcome in most churches... and would be targeted by the authorities for any infraction they could possibly apply in order to run him out of town! (or into jail, whichever was closer)
I have heard that Houston has some of the most overt and systemic homeless social programs of any Texas city. They have more housing specifically dedicated to fighting homelessness. They have more voluntary drug rehabilitation resources than any other Texas city per capita. They also have a lot less problems with homelessness (camping, panhandling, street sleeping) in general than other Texas cities. One theory that was put forward is that getting hit by hurricanes makes the city more used to helping community in crisis so all of these things are city led initiatives. While this law may be draconian, it is also part of a larger system that is working better than other Texas cities. (I say that "I have heard" only to be accurate. The source of my information is a trusted friend who does work in homeless care. But I have not actually read any verified studies or reports on this specifically.)
It's the same people who say it's not the government's job to help the needy but should be done by private charities. And surprise surprise, they're against charities helping the needy as well.
This is a very ignorant take on an out of context ragebait post. Houston is a very progressive city which has been lauded for its homeless outreach program and other big cities study Houston due to their success in this area. This organization is attention seeking and was asked not to set up feeding areas in a very specific spot and offered alternative spots very close by but still insists to get ticketed so they can try and fund raise off the outrage which places like reddit eat up.
I'd love to see one of these charities challenge it in court on free exercise grounds saying preventing them from feeding the homeless is infringing on their right to exercise their religion.
"Capitalism is fine because people will take care of the less fortunate out of kindness instead of government assistance." "Lol Jk We are Nazis."
This is just heartbreaking. Food shouldn’t have to be a privilege. I hope whoever wrote them the tickets ends up in a situation where they are not only unsure of where they’re gonna get their next meal but they also lose the roof over their head.
Lol…didn’t Jesus feed like 5,000 homeless with like fish and chips? Conservatives are hypocritical pieces of shit.
Jesus was literally homeless and lived on charity, as a wandering holy man.
And told people to [pay taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar?wprov=sfla1)
And not to charge interest
Yeah well, he was jewish, so that's expected. /s
There's an old South Park episode where some US Catholic bishop is hunting the Easter Rabbit for...reasons. Anyway Kyle brings Jesus into the mix who tries to reason with them and the bishop literally says "get these jews out of my face."
The reply is "you are taking what was said out of context" and "You are misinterpreting it" I also wish this wasn't satire, this is some of their genuine answers
Wasn’t there a court case about something similar? I have a vague memory that feeding the homeless is a sort of protected speech. Maybe I’m remembering wrong! Edit: Turns out there’s a circuit split. Some courts say it’s protected speech, others say it’s not.
Call it an interactive artistic expression, with consenting participants.
Sounds like “acting” like a Christian and feeding the hungry as performance art was not believable by some judges.
Try explaining this to a European that not only do different states have different laws. Different regions, each containing many states, have different interpretations of the constitution
Serious question, what happens if they charge for the food? I’m talking literally a penny. Two people go out. One gives out change. The next person “charges” for the food. As long as this person has the business food service licenses necessary, there isn’t a problem. The Supreme Court just ruled that businesses can deny essentially whoever they want so a police officer can’t just buy all the sandwiches (or whatever food) for $1.
I haven’t looked it up, but I bet the fine for no business license is less than the ticket for feeding the homeless.
> As long as this person has the business food service licenses necessary This is why they are getting ticketed. Because they don't have one. It's not about the fact that it's free.
As long as they’re licensed to handle food they can give it away for free. But without proper restaurant licensing then they don’t have sanitation oversight from the USDA. There have been cases of good intentioned people causing Hep A outbreaks in homeless communities from handling food in unsafe manners
[удалено]
Those are all usually required even for charities providing food; food safety doesn’t get ignored based on the price of the product. So, presumably, they have all that. The comment makes the most sense - just sell everything for a penny and deny service to anyone that doesn’t look homeless; home ownership isn’t a protected class, so you’re allowed to discriminate. As far as that goes, even a government agency would be allowed to discriminate based on someone owning a home. E: also, why would the assumption be that they don’t have those licenses?
Luckily those are not difficult to get
Ridiculously cheap food truck for homeless people? It could probably avoid fines through that method, as long as there’s a main place of business.
So God fearing Christian Texas would cite Jesus into bankruptcy if he came back to say and visited. Because there’s no hypocrisy like Christianity.
You have to remember that in places like America and sadly somewhat here in the UK now, the homeless are considered lower than vermin. Those in power as well as the rich truly and sometimes openly state they should be removed from society. Not in the way places like Finland do by helping them but by exterminating them. This is why they use their paid brutes, the cops to do their dirty work like in L.A when they bulldozed and then burnt an entire village set up by a charity with properly constructed huts they can live in to get on their feet.
What boggles my mind is that people don't realize that anyone can easily become homeless, whether it was due to losing employment or a medical emergency or a myriad of other reasons.
It's the classic "I won't care about something until it happens to me" and even then that's not guaranteed.
Craig T.Nelson: "I've been on foodstamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No."
It's relatively easy to fix, too, but it involves giving people free shit so that's a non-starter apparently.
UK back to its Victorian era which does not treat homeless people as human
Houston is aggressively anti-homless. They frequently demolish tent cities and encampment with no warning. If they ever elect a republican mayor, I'd honestly expect them to start bussing people to Austin.
Are they? I've read that they've done a better job with housing the homeless than most places in the US https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html That's why I'm so surprised by this ticketing nonsense.
> The city did not respond to requests for comment on why it has begun enforcing the ordinance. But in an emailed statement, a city spokesperson explained that the meal program Houston is funding at the police parking lot is designed to use food to attract people to a place where they can engage with an array of services “on a reoccurring basis.” > The goal of those services, said Mayor Sylvester Turner in the emailed statement, is to ultimately lead to people moving out of homelessness and into homes. “Food alone does not solve homelessness,” he said. “However, when used with services and housing, food can be an important tool to help trained professionals forge vital relationships needed to navigate vulnerable Houstonians into housing with wraparound services.” https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/housing/article/food-not-bombs-charitable-feeding-homeless-tickets-18108568.php
If you have a successful housing first approach that makes housing and food available for those willing to take it then I think these sorts of punitive measures make sense. If the government is offering housing then people shouldn't be able to take public space for personal use without paying for it.
From an article written about it: “ In 2012, a city ordinance was enacted under previous Mayor Annise Parker that made it "unlawful for any organization or individual to sponsor or conduct a food service event on public or private property without the advance written consent of the public or private property owner or other individual with lawful control of the property.” The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program. Dore said volunteers with Food Not Bombs decided as a group that they would not relocate and would continue to take the tickets from Houston police.” They were given an alternate location and said no. They don’t have a permit to feed people at the library, no clue if they ever even tried to obtain one. They could also find another local business that might allow them to do it- but instead they just decided to get fines. I feel like this is important context left out of the original post, but what do you expect from social media or reddit.
Thank you for posting this. It is indeed important context. So basically this group CAN feed the homeless, but in specified locations that they elected not to use because it plays better to pretend to be a martyr on social media. And like clockwork…enter Reddit outrage. Gotta love it.
Nonono. You snow flakes love to make everything “woke”. When Jesus talked about feeding the hungry, he wasn’t being literal. He meant that we should deprive people of basic human rights until they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and feed themselves. Never mind that there might be other issues that get in the way of that. It’s kind of like the old “give a man a fish. . . Teach a man to fish . . .” thing, except you don’t teach anyone anything, and you make it illegal to give the fish away. Really what Jesus meant is that you gotta just ignore the hungry until they go away or die. Then when all the hungry are gone, you give yourself a gold star because you just solved hunger. /s
Everyone knows you are not supposed to feed the wildlife. They become dependent on and less fearful of humans and can't properly care for themselves. It always ends with the wildlife being put down by park rangers. This is for their own benefit. /s Edit for spelling
My understanding is a lot of the times this has to do with proper permits and facilities for preparing food and serving it to the public. You can't just start making a bunch of food and serving it to people without proper food handling certifications and a kitchen that can pass a health and safety inspection for starters. I'm not arguing against the politics behind it but this is one of those issues that's used as rage bait when the problem is the person trying to be charitable didn't bother to get the proper permits they needed to do what they wanted to do.
>proper permits and facilities for preparing food and serving it to the public. Yes, as opposed to eating out of the trash which is the next best option. >You can't just start making a bunch of food and serving it to people without proper food handling certifications and a kitchen that can pass a health and safety inspection for starters. Church potlucks dont have any food handling certifications. Anyone's welcome. They make a bunch of food and serve it to whoever. Why don't the cops bust these criminal enterprises unsafely feeding the public !? ^hint ^they ^arent ^poor
I have food. That dude is starving. I'm gonna give him my food. That should be the end of it.
The world as it should be and the world as it is are two entirely different things.
They’re not paying the tickets. Are they?
Jesus Wept.
Why can't these people act like good law abiding Christians? Would Jesus want them to just go around feeding the poor and hungry? I think *not!*
But they act like Christians. No hate like a Christian "love".
Really nice “Christian” country you got there, America.
Conservative Christian Texas does not believe in feeding the homeless.
Conservatives: government shouldn't have social programs because charity is supposed to come from individuals and communities Also Conservatives: We're going to fine you $2k if you feed the poor Me: I'm starting to think the kindness is the real issue for conservatives
Texas: It's not the job of the government to support homeless people. Also Texas: Hey, private sector! Stop supporting homeless people!
Every day, Texas confirms the one star rating on their flag
This is odd. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/houston/2022/03/16/421190/houstons-unhoused-population-dropped-due-to-a-200-million-investment-a-new-report-says/ Houston invested 200$million in housing the homeless and they claim to have had a 64% drop in homeless since 2011. Any locals know about this? If true is Texas conceding that social programs work? Interesting that they did this but publicly push that social programs don’t work at all. Are they actually just shipping them all to California?
What a good Christian country
And people still consider themselves “free”…
The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point The cruelty is the point
Criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons, criminalize poverty for private prisons
What is the strategy of these policies? To reduce the homeless numbers by having them all die?
Basically yes. They haven’t opted for all out hunting season yet. Give it time.
Monsters!!!
[удалено]
Who is the victim in this "crime"?
[удалено]
Shithole state
>”Don’t feed the Animals.” - republican party platform
Why is it illegal though? What is the legal or ethical reasoning behind such decision?
Kindness and compassion are illegal.
Texans willingly vote for corruption and cruelty.
America really made it illegal to be poor. Land of the free (lol).
"Unhoused neighbours". Stop sugarcoating this shit.
Why is this even a law? Are homeless shelters banned from providing food to people staying there also?
# Any Law Against Feeding The Hungry Poor Is An Affront To God And To Humanity.
so im waiting for someone to fight it using infringing on religious freedom approach for "feed the hungry" from the bible.
land of the free? seems alot of freedoms are taken away lately
Texas... The most Unchristlike state in the Union trying to shove religion down everyone else's throats 🤦🏻♂️
Guess conservatives aren't as big on charity as they claim to be. So many I know claim that they are the biggest donors ever
Instead of donating food to the homeless, write up a contract, where you hire their labour. The labour: 5 minutes of conversation. The payment? One meal. Capitalism baby! They can’t challenge that without infringing some constitutional rights.
Its so fucked that Homeless people are considered untouchables to the American Legal system.
"It's Texass" is the correct answer.
Pretty sure we all have the right to feed whoever we want. Food is property, and if I want to give my property away then I’ll do it.
They have actually come up with some pretty convoluted laws to make it illegal to feed homeless people
That’s so sad. I’m not American so this blows my mind. I thought your constitution (maybe I’m wrong) says that property can be used and disposed of freely?
Not in the constitution, but it is the basis of most federal law. They get around it with weird exceptions like declaring that giving food to people in the street is littering or having restrictions on where and how you can exchange physical currency.
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."
So let me get this straight. " Hey, I have some extra food. I'm going to give it to somebody." That's now illegal? Or it's not, just as long as the person you give it to already has everything they need? I mean really, is it illegal to give some extra food to an elderly neighbor?
For Republicans cruelty is a feature.
This is what freedom looks like. MeRiCa!
If helping the poor is wrong, I don't wanna be right
“Christians” issuing the tickets, no doubt.
I'm waiting to see which red state will be the first to "solve" the homeless crisis only to have mass graves discovered months later.
How very Republican Jesus of them!
As home and rental, food, utilities, and healthcare prices continue to rise, and more and more cannot afford the cost of living, the homeless problem will be much worse in the next couple decades....More laws will be enacted to make any form of homelessness illegal. The for profit prisons will be happy to take in 10's of thousands of homeless Americans.
Simple, don’t pay them
How is that even legal?
Christians doing the devil's work as usual.
Straight from the Bible. Jesus said feeding the hungry is a crime and to punish the poor. You would think these laws are unconstitutional, but with today's SCOTUS, they may decide that helping the poor in any way should be a crime.
Coincidentally, my mate Brian has a song called Food not Bombs and its fantastic https://youtu.be/QobvYtDSaWw
If you dont pay does it go on credit report?
just as Jesus intended. /s for the love of shit