Posted on 08/12/2012 7:55:55 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Phoenix officials have until next Friday to apologize for the actions of a code enforcement officer after he stopped Christians from giving out water bottles to city festival participants on a day that reached 112 degrees.
A legal team that fights for religious and civil rights is also demanding a commitment that the city will no longer interfere with the Christian group’s acts of charity.
According to a letter to the city from the Rutherford Institute, the case developed in July during a “First Friday” festival when Dana Crow-Smith was giving “free bottles of cold water to passersby” on the public sidewalk “as a means of exercising her Christian beliefs.”
She “was moved” to offer the refreshment “to people at the festival who were braving the desert’s scorching 112-degree heat,” said the letter to city attorney Gary Verburg.
“According to Ms. Crow-Smith, her group was approached by Neighborhood Preservation Inspector Dwayne Grierson, who told them that they were violating the Phoenix City Code by giving away water without a vendor’s permit,” the letter explains. In fact, Grierson insisted that giving water away was “prohibited.”
The ban, however, violates several significant precedents, such as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Arizona’s Freedom of Religious Exercise Act, Rutherford officials wrote.
A woman in the city attorney’s office declined to respond to WND’s questions, and phone calls requesting comment from the city’s public information office were not returned at the time of this report.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Who knew the posting guidlines tell you not to engage in personal attacks and insults?
When they came into the possession of the United States they did so with very little in the way of pre-existing claims ~ a few hundred unpopulated Spanish or Mexican land grants of course ~ i can talk all day about how unfair the law has been to some of us when it comes to fully recovering property ~ but they also came in with Spanish origin water rights law in place.
These laws were developed over thousands of years in other semi-arid regions. To a degree they are very simple ~ if you find a spot where you can divert water to your use, and nobody else has done that before ~ upstream or downstream ~ then you can use that water and the guy upstream can't divert it to his use and deprive you of water!n The guy downstream can't use it either!
It doesn't matter who owns the land upstream or downstream ~ the rights to the water are dealt with separately under their own set of laws ~ and land is dealt with under its set of laws. Prior-appropriation is one of the terms you'll find has great meaning in dealing with riparian rights.
There are thousands of lawyers in America who make a good living helping settle disputes regarding water rights.
Inasmuch as government can sell and issue title to land ~ government can also sell, loan, regulate and issue title to water ~ even the drops that fall from the sky.
For the most part our Eastern states have enough water on hand that all comers can divert water for their use ~ after all, they'll have to put it somewhere won't they. The water rights laws are entirely different there, but like the Western states government sold land, with or without water and mineral rights, and your title to the land may or may not include water and/or mineral rights ~ but it's simply invisible to you because of the amount of rainfall you get.
In this case someone secured some water under the laws appropriate to that area and then started giving it away to others. If the law gave him the right to drink it himself that's one thing, but if the law didn't give him the right to give it away that's another.
Since when? The law has always been pretty clear on the issue. Not just your possession of water but also your use of it has been subject to intense regulation by law in our Western states.
The only question is whether or not this festival took place under the jurisdiction of Arizona or the federal government.
The water rights issues follow the same pattern ~ which law prevails in this case.
So, up from the bad old days it's still a tough set of laws, but that's the way it is when you have a severe, permanent water shortage.
Bottled water that you buy?
By the same token, a person would have to have “mineral rights” in order to be able to take food they’ve grown on their own land to a potluck. Or actually, they’d have to have mineral rights to take ANY food to a potluck. Or to serve food to any guests at their home.
I hear what you’re saying about the scarcity of water; that’s becoming quite an issue even here in Nebraska with rivers and creeks drying up this year. But if this includes commodities you buy from an outside region and it’s taken to its logical conclusion, the only people who can even eat or drink in those states are people who own land and have land and water rights. How can renters have any right to eat or drink? How can anybody who visits those states but doesn’t live there?
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system.”
Quote by: Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3
“Who knew a bunch of fatherless teenage boys posted on FR, LOL.”
I originally thought that you simply forgot the sarc tag on your original post that supported the government drone. Now, I know you were not!
I am astounded that such a long time FReeper called their fellow FReepers BASTARDS for simply objecting to nanny statism.
I don’t care how cute you think you are for trying to hide the vulgar reference, you simply called FReepers BASTARDS!
With the recent purging that has been occuring, I’d nominate you as a prime candidate. However, I have never hit the abuse button and will refrain from doing so again. I’ll hope to see an apology later in the thread and chalk it up to you having a bad day.
Thanks for the ping!
Giving away sealed bottles of water is not “vending” and cannot expose anyone to disease. Moreover, having at one time lived in that city, I know it as a place where giving away bottled water at public events is a routine safety measure.
Please explain how giving away free bottles of water is "vending"?
He may not have the authority to not enforce the law, but it's also apparent that he lacks the judgment necessary to recognize the difference between vending and giving something away. To just keep walking along, looking for those actually vending without a permit.
IOW, this is the kind of attitude that is rife within local and national government nowadays. He's just another example of it and how it all starts.
None dare call it by it's name, stupidity.
He doesn’t have the authority to NOT enforce the law. That takes an elected politician!
You are all so full of rebellion that you can’t understand me.
I’m disgusted with the tone of hatred on this thread. Some goofy guy makes a mistake and it gets fixed. Now he knows.
There is no place for the horrible things everyone on this thread said about the man. And the general negativity is getting old.
Firstly, why do you believe the facts in the article? Aren’t Freepers smarter than that? Are these Christians or illegal aliens? Are they trying to cause an incident for propaganda?
I have too many questions to attach personal emotion to any of this and it is worrisome that Freepers just herd-up to all badmouth some worker, especially when it is being properly addressed.
I know, let’s read the article; believe every word; get a rope; and hang the SOB!
But the horrible thing you said about me, and everyone else that didn’t agree with you, have a place on this thread?
Plus you bring up straw men arguments about the criticism offered. Nobody said we must hang the guy, except you. We said he could have chosen to let this slide. As many bureaucrats do all the time. Even district attorneys let some lesser things slide because other things are a higher priority to deal with. Bureaucrats have discretion to select what they go after because they can’t go after everything. They will be the first to tell you that. They try to go after the worst infractions. The fact this was chosen as something to go after shows poor judgment at best, and that’s what we are commenting her about. If you bought bottled water and you paid for it, you ought to be able to do what you want with it. If you can’t do what you want with your own property - water, etc - you don’t really own it.
The only other thing you may be objecting to is that this was a Christian person trying to do something nice for other people. In which case there’s no discussing it with you.
Since when?
Since I don’t need US mineral rights to sell a quart bottle of Mobil 1 motor oil.
You are too funny.
The cops prevented them from handing out water bottles because they didn’t have a business license to do so, NOT because they lacked “water rights”.
But please keep arguing the point as it keeps me entertained and I need a good laugh every now and then.
Around here the regular cops and water meter readers watch for violations of the county grass ordinance.
All the ancient latins are, of course, dead
Here is your chance. PROVE to me that if I buy a case of 24 bottles of water at the store, I am restricted in what I do with them BY WATER RIGHTS. Please PROVE to me that a state’s water rights laws regulate what I do with bottles of water purchased at a store.
Please put up or shut up. I’m dying to hear this one. I’ll happily read whatever source you provide for me with your definitive EVIDENCE that state water rights laws dictate what consumers can do with bottles of water purchased at the store.
Believe me, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for your reply. I am certain you can’t prove it and I’ll happily eat crow and off you my humblest of humble apologize if your miraculous proof to me appears.
I don’t mean to be as abrasive as I am, but your argument strikes me as flat incredible and I not only require proof that state water right laws supercede state commerce laws for retail water bottles, but I am certain no proof will be forthcoming because I find the idea so laughable.
Prove me wrong and I will be more than happy to humbly apologize. Cite all the laws and legal precedent you want. I’m anxious to hear it.
Arizona Surface Water Rights. I see nothing about “retail bottled water” rights.
http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/SurfaceWater/SurfaceWaterRights/default.htm
Surface water and groundwater law. I see nothing about water bottled by retail distributers here.
http://www.hughholub.com/waterlaw.htm
Doesn’t matter how you wrap the water, it’s what your legal rights are to it and what privileges have been extended to your ownership of that particular water. BTW, thanks for posting a reference. Folks in Eastern states would be astounded at the slightest touch of fascism in that law ~ but there you have it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.