Phoenix Woman Ordered to Not Give Out Water in 112 Degree Heat Because She Lacked a Permit: Absurd or Appropriate?

Like most liberal government regs.

Again, a case of the news carefuly filtering what they say to get the most reaction while leaving just enough truth in there to wiggle out of any potential lawsuits.

She was giving out water in a place where vending permits were required. If she as OUTSIDE of the fairgrounds, that's one thing,

But she wasn't. Her 'gift' was also undercutting everyone else around there that were selling water, in a venue where they paid for the license to do so.

That's some gift.

Did you read the letter to the city that the Rutherford Institue sent them on behalf of Dana crow-Smith? Go to Reason.com It explains more of what happned in that letter.

Yes, I have read the letter. I also read where the assumption is that the city will pay litigation fees even if the institute loses. That's just blatant arrogance.

They also misrepresented what 'vending' means. It does mean to offer with intent to sell, but it ALSO means "To offer for public consideration".

When she was handing out water, she was also handing out bible verses. There's an implicit agreement then to have the water, you have to listen to her too. She has the right to hand out water. She does NOT have the right to preach at the same time too, which is how some people will take it as.

An another case where those vending permits would be useful is if someone was tracked to giving away poisoned goods, or spoiled. Then there's a record of who to go to. But if it's just someone that's allowed to give away food without regard, and without record... and someone died?

Those permits arn't there to curtail her activities. They are there to PROTECT folks from those that would do harm. If she had a permit to do so, then this wouldn't even be an issue!

I just looked at arizona's fees for those events. If I read it right, her permit cost would have been 0$ for being a non-profit.

zero. So why didn't she?

Why should she? She doesn't need permission from anyone to give anything away nor to speak. Even at no cost, requesting a permit says they have the right to tell you what peaceful activity you may or may not do. Neither of her activities infringed on anyone's property rights nor were they violent.

I think your missing the point of whatI'm posting here TA.

It's not a matter of her speaking. Speaking can't poison someone. handing out water... yea. That could, if she was one of those that would do such a thing. The permits is designed to keep folks from passing out bad water by letting them know they'll be on record.

Do I think /she/ would do such a thing? Not likely. But that doesn't excuse her from the process all the same.

She does have the right to speak her beliefs to the public without a permit too. She has the right to both hand out water and speak about what she believes ie preach. Does someone need to quote the 1st Amendment to you.

I could say the same of you.

TOO OFTEN, I see the 1st amendment used as a defense for ANYTHING under the sky, to the point if I hear 'first amendment' I get those alarm bells going off.

The first amendment is not there as a license to do anything you damn well want, nor is it a defense if someone gets stupid and doesn't do their homework.

I know full well what it's intended for. Her rights were not curtailed, all she had to do was let someone know that was her intentions, get a permit that probably would have been free for her, and this whole thing wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

you don't need a permit to exercise free speech or free exercise of religion. If you did it wouldn't be free.

Permits I believe in her case, if I read arizona law right, would be free as she would be acting as a non-profit.

No one should be denied water if they need it. It would be like denying to give water to Jesus himself. it is to me unconscionable to deny water when it is needed.

It would still require her to go get the permit which is a restriction. Therefore not free. So no she doesn't need to get a permit.

Some see restriction, others see a protection. If she had spread tainted water that made people sick, would we be even having this discussion?

If she had, and it was found out she wasn't permitted, what would your response be then?

Had she spread tainted water she would be liable for the harm she caused. A permit cannot protect against such things. Permits are merely permission slips from strangers to do things for which one needs no permission.

A permit can't protect from it, but it DOES make it much, much, much easier to track them so they couldn't get far if they did.

Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.

... apropo.

That's something I believe pretty heavily in but it seemed I had made an exception in this case...

You know what, I'm going to backtrack here and mull over it a bit.

I can admit when I'm wrong, like in this case.

I disagree with the religious angle but... all other aspects of this, yea maybe the city should have stayed out of it.

You know, John,there are many issues affecting this country right now that seem to be making less and less sense to me...this is one of them. I understand there are people in this world that do bad things and it hurts others, but when they do good things [ like the lady with the water that had a sealed top ] and others complain, something has gone wrong within the heart of this country. God said these things were going to come about, but that doesn't mean, those that are good are suppose to quit trying to be good people. Was it evil for this lady to give out tracts and sealed water to others or was it something that Jesus Christ would smile at because it was good? We do have the first Amendment and that is good... There were wise men that set those up because of the very thing that happened to that lady. They were tired of a government strangling the life out of them with their taxation and regulations and bringing no hope to them...so they left and came here and drew up the Constitution. We all have the right to do good for our fellowman,as God has asked us to do...those are Gods good laws for us. When we no longer care, than we are in trouble [ spiritually speaking ]...we have let the love of God leave us.

It's not a matter of caring or not.. it's more of, if this gal was using God's name to spread a poison (which HAS happened..), I want to know that the gov't can track her ass down and make her pay for it.

All it takes is one bad apple, and sadly, she's getting some of the punishment for that but knowing those bad apples exist.. I would feel much safer if she had the permits to do so. then I wouldn't mind accepting that water from her.

As I've said to kobi, guilty, but let her off with just a slap on the wrist and call it done. She was trying to do the right thing, but the laws exist for a reason.

I know what you're talking about and its a shame this country has gotten to the place where we are becoming so supicious of each other that we are forming a nation under evil , instead of under God.

She has every right to hand out water. If someone wants it they have the right to take it so long as she is willing to hand it to them. It's their body and their choice.

As to giving away bible verses with the water, she is also free to speak her mind to anyone willing to listen. Personally, I wouldn't, but other people like that stuff.

If an individual is concerned about taking water from a person who has no permit or some other license or inspection certificate, they can decide for themselves to refrain. That's called taking responsibility for oneself.

When she lassos people, ties them to a chair and water-boards them while telling them bible verses, then we have a problem.

Whatever you do unto the least of whoever you are doing it unto Christ. Do you hear me?

Considering people make a living at those fairs... and the fact she didn't go through proper channels to ensure that it was legit?

The intentions were noble... but Arizona isn't a church ran state.

In my opinion...
Guilty? Yes.
Let off with a slap on the hand? Yes.

When a person is aware they are dehydrated passing out, and dying on the spot becomes real. Getting water fast is important. She thought on her feet to act quickly. She is doing a good thing in my eyes. Praise her for giving water when it is needed. Matthew 25 >>34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
King James Version

As a city run event, I have no doubt emergency services and first aid stations were available there. The water she was handing out was /optional/. Not a requirement to keep people from getting dehydrated as there were city specific responses at the ready for those kind of emergencies.

No.. she was by far, not their last choice. And I have no idea what kind of training she had in handling those emergencies. I know the fire fighters, paramedics and first aid stations would though.

Sorry, she may have thought she was doing a good thing but don't assume the city would be negligent in ensuring that people would be safe too.

That's what God sees. She was acting so there would be no need for a paramedic or a fire fighter spending more money waiting for thing's to get worse not waiting for an emergency. She was being preventative in her thinking.

I would be wary of making statements like "That's what God sees"....

Neither you or I know the mind of God. So we shouldn't make assumptions on what he does, or does not, see.

I can understand your point though and with that morally I don't have a problem with. But I believe the permit system is there to keep those that would abuse that good will to do harm.

Thus.. while guilty, the only thing she is guilty of is not following through on paperwork. Yay.. something kind of like a fixit ticket for a car. Get it fixed, then the citation is tossed out.

I know what God sees. He is in me like he needs to be in whosoever so whoever does not see God glorified face as hell or the gates of heaven as hell. Final judgment occurs around the city of God read KJV,Rev, 20. 9 says fire,but that is how the wicked see it that are not like Jesus is. In the beginning God did not make paper. People made paper. She was thinking of her fellow human beings. People have turned it is to a federal case to give her guilt. I say cease, and desist. Jesus does not give anyone guilt. Don't people know scripture?
2 Corinthians 5:10 ;For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Truly, Truly that woman did good.

Eh..... yea, good luck with that....

People have to face their maker. Do Good, and the soul of whoever will not face heat that is hot enough to evaporate the water off of this planet.

Yet another case where some crazy people over-enforced badly-written rules, and should be re-trained or thrown out.

There are just waaaay too many people from the "Mysterious Island or Whatever of Hispan" residing in Arizona . . . Look at what happened to Mexico? . .. Well? . . . ? ? ? What could one expect from a State of Idiots, anyway; ACUPUNCTURE!?? . . . . .

This is what LIBERAL GOVERNMENT is all about.

She was in direct competition with the government, they won't put up with that.

No need for that inhumane treatment in this day & age.