Religion and Gun Attacks

[DrunkBomber]

I'm not missing that point. I was using the story to illustrate a different point (religious charities sometimes do s***ty things for religious reasons), so it's not particularly relevant.

 

Ideally, the shelter just doesn't do the dumb thing it did. There's no need for them to close down, but there was no need to ship women and children out and bar any more from coming, either. If their funding comes from donations, I'd hope people send their money to shelters that wouldn't do the same things they did, but again not really central to the point.

 

[StrangeSox]

Yes, that is a correct statement. Today, right now, they have kicked the women that were there out and barred any more from coming into the shelter. That at some hypothetical point in the future they may possibly renovate the facilities and would then accept women again doesn't change that.

 

edit: this is a selfie I just took though

Edited December 17, 2015 by StrangeSox

[DrunkBomber]

Yes, that is a correct statement. Today, right now, they have kicked the women that were there out and barred any more from coming into the shelter. That at some hypothetical point in the future they may possibly renovate the facilities and would then accept women again doesn't change that.

 

edit: this is a selfie I just took though

You said they barred women and children from coming to the shelter. I posted a quote of the guy saying "Woodward said he would like to be able to accept women in the shelter in the future. However, he said he would need to renovate the facility."

 

Apparently this is such a big deal to you that youve resorted to memes...

[StrangeSox]

Women and children are barred from coming to the shelter. I don't know why you think hypothetical future renovations or policy changes means that they are not right now barred from the shelter. You keep doing a great job of illustrating the truth of what I said.

 

The meme was making fun of myself btw

[Jenksismyhero]

Pretty tough to get to the shelter that's 30 minutes away if you don't have transportation. Because these women and children are homeless, it's reasonable to assume that at the very least some lack sufficient transportation. Because this is a rural area, it's reasonable to infer that public transportation doesn't service the area.

 

This guy certainly doesn't have to provide shelter to the homeless, and the charity provides an objective benefit (ie, some homeless sheltered is better than no homeless sheltered), but it does illustrate the limitations of the social safety net relying on the whims of religious dogma.

 

He "sent them" to the other shelter though. To me, that means he provided the transportation. At the very least, it's quite a bit different from "barring" them from the place, as if he pushed them outside and then locked the door behind them.

 

It all seems very reasonable to me. It's a motel-like shelter, from the looks of it. The facilities aren't great. It's a rural area so you can infer there's very little money there. There are more men than women. There seems to be an issue of people having sex going on (the whore house was a reference to the fact that he probably doesn't want his shelter to become known as a place to get laid, or to be seen as a place where people can come meet and bang...whether that's due to his religious beliefs or not is beside the point, he runs the place so it's his rules you have to abide by). According to his own words, he "sent" the women away because of the number of men vs. women at the shelter. They were "sent" to another shelter, not left on the street. Again, I have a hard time believing that means he told them about the place 30 minutes away, kicked them out and yelled "good luck!" as he locked the door. He also was quoted as saying that he acknowledged sex takes two people and that he hoped in the future he could upgrade the facility and allow women back.

 

This is all a very different scenario than what SS and that website proposed, which was, in summary: "evil religious guy kicks out poor, helpless women from a shelter because they were tempting men into having sex."

[StrangeSox]

Religious guy did kick out poor women from a shelter because they were having sex with men, though.

 

edit: they are actually closing the shelter temporarily for renovations. I still don't know what sort of renovations you'd need if you wanted to segregate men and women. Like jenks said, it kinda looks like a motel so you'd think it's separate rooms already?

http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Homeless-...-362038531.html

 

edit2: but this also really undercuts the original claim that there were more men than women:

Woodward originally told us 10 to 12 women were asked to leave the shelter. He said he wanted to clarify that number included calls he received from women inquiring about space at the shelter.

 

The director said the five men currently staying at the facility will have time to find another place to live.

Edited December 17, 2015 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

He "sent them" to the other shelter though. To me, that means he provided the transportation. At the very least, it's quite a bit different from "barring" them from the place, as if he pushed them outside and then locked the door behind them.

 

It all seems very reasonable to me. It's a motel-like shelter, from the looks of it. The facilities aren't great. It's a rural area so you can infer there's very little money there. There are more men than women. There seems to be an issue of people having sex going on (the whore house was a reference to the fact that he probably doesn't want his shelter to become known as a place to get laid, or to be seen as a place where people can come meet and bang...whether that's due to his religious beliefs or not is beside the point, he runs the place so it's his rules you have to abide by). According to his own words, he "sent" the women away because of the number of men vs. women at the shelter. They were "sent" to another shelter, not left on the street. Again, I have a hard time believing that means he told them about the place 30 minutes away, kicked them out and yelled "good luck!" as he locked the door. He also was quoted as saying that he acknowledged sex takes two people and that he hoped in the future he could upgrade the facility and allow women back.

 

This is all a very different scenario than what SS and that website proposed, which was, in summary: "evil religious guy kicks out poor, helpless women from a shelter because they were tempting men into having sex."

 

Ok, so a cursory review of some articles doesn't go any further than that he "sent them" to the other shelter. If he arranged transportation for the women, then I'm less concerned. But I also don't believe that the articles saying he "sent them" means he arranged transportation. Somebody knocks on my door by accident looking for the house next door, I send them next door. That doesn't mean I walked them next door. Sent does not necessarily mean "arranged transportation." At best, it's unclear (though I think critical to whether this guy behaved poorly by the act of removing women and children from his shelter in the middle of winter).

 

Also, I don't disagree that it's his shelter and his rules. But that's part of the problem with relying on private parties for safety net services. This guy, on a whim, could decide to kick out everybody in his shelter. Fine, it's his place, it's his rules. But if the government provides those services, then the homeless actually have rights (equal protection, etc.).

 

Finally, the guy actually did say that the women were tempting the men with sex. It's his right to say that and believe that, but to call it out as an ignorant statement (and frankly to then refer to the women as treating the shelter as a whore house) is straight out of the playbook of blaming Eve for original sin in the Bible. I'm sure this guy was dealing with a bad situation and, again, housing some homeless is better than housing no homeless, but he backed up his decision with a pretty ignorant statement and it's not unreasonable to call him to task for that...

[DrunkBomber]

Religious guy did kick out poor women from a shelter because they were having sex with men, though.

 

edit: they are actually closing the shelter temporarily for renovations. I still don't know what sort of renovations you'd need if you wanted to segregate men and women. Like jenks said, it kinda looks like a motel so you'd think it's separate rooms already?

http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Homeless-...-362038531.html

 

edit2: but this also really undercuts the original claim that there were more men than women:

lol

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Didn't want to start a new topic; somewhat related to the OP.

 

A flight attendant kicked four Brooklyn men off a recent Toronto-to-New York flight for looking too Muslim — claiming their appearance made the captain uneasy, a new $9 million federal lawsuit alleges.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/lawsui...ticle-1.2499843