a right to refuse service?

[KellyHabersham]

*Inspired by a brief conversation I had with a fellow church member who's been volunteering in the office since I was laid off*

I guess the best way to phrase this is - do you believe that a church should have the "right" to refuse service to someone when it comes to providing assistance? And by this, I mean with people who who are trying to "scam" whatever system that church has set up - I know for mine, there's a few people whom I feel should NOT receive bus passes again, and there's one couple whom I'd have wanted to ban from receiving food pantry assistance.

[Mytical]

Hmm a tricky question. While I feel that churches should not turn away anybody who needs help, I feel they should have the right to refuse service to anybody, just as someplace like Wally World does. Especially people who abuse the system

[Kheldarson]

I'm with Myt on this being a tricky one. One the one hand, if there's absolute proof that these people are scamming the system, then they don't need to be given anything more than what they absolutely need. "Oh you want a bus pass to go to such and such? Well, we're going to write on here that that's the only place you can get off and get picked up." Or, "Oh, you need food? Here you go. *gives bare minimum of food since we know they go to multiple food shelters*" And if they start pitching a fit, you ask them to leave.

If scammers don't get exactly what they want, they leave.

[HYHYBT]

There has to be *some* limit, or there will be nothing left for legitimate need (or even for the worse legitimate needs when minor ones have come through.)

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, on the one hand, we're supposed to be forgiving.

On the other...

Well, if people are repeatedly scamming you, then they're not just taking from you, they're taking from the people who really DO need it. This isn't like taking from a store, where you're only METAPHORICALLY taking food from the mouths of people who need it. You're pretty much literally taking the food from people who need it more than you.

If you have damn good reason to suspect that someone is a scammer, and are harming the people around them through that, then you should refuse them service. But you'd need a good amount of proof.

Perhaps some sort of church tribunal or something, so you can only ban someone if there's a unanimous vote.

[Kheldarson]

Problem is, some of these scammers aren't part of that church. Like you get people who go around to food pantries for all their food. They just hit as many as they can in a day. Those are the guys who you prep specifically limited food bags for. And if they don't like it, well, they'll stop coming.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, the reason I suggested having a tribunal/whatever was so you'd be able to block people that way. Instead of giving them limited bags, you'd be able to say "I know you're scamming us, get out." But it wouldn't be one person's decision. In general, I think the more people there are, the more likely it is that someone will be not banned just because the 'manager' is having a rough day.

Edit: Manager is in quotes because its an equivalent title, not because I don't think that the people who run church food places don't work hard

[Racket_Man]

/bg
the church I grew up is was Roman Catholic. I went to grade school there for grades 1 - 4. there were 2 bigger parishes literally 4 and 6 blocks away so the diocases closed our school but left the church alone cause there was enough of a church-going population. this left only the parish priest and one or two paid workers to "run/maintain" the property. the parish "population" was big enough for them to keep it going (for 35 years at that) but small enough (and got smaller each year as the parishioners got older and passed on, or moved away) that the parish did not have a lot of extra $$ to throw around.

/end bg

after the school closed in 1970, they used to have "poor or desitute" people coming to the rectory begging for help (food, money or shelter help). the parish priest was in a catch-22 situation. Yes help the poor or the needy but how to keep the perpetual scammers at bay.

the parish priest requested help from the dioscese. they authorized a local chapter of the St Vincent De Paul Society.
brief history of SSVDP in the St. Louis area est. in 1845

My Mom and Dad became very active in this work over the years. what the Society brought to the table was like most social help agencies. they were there to help people in trouble BUT there were rules and requirements for help. like home visits, situation, job, income, and children verification. this tended to weed out the repeat scammers and moochers.

near the beginning Mom and Dad (and the other people involved) had a HUGE learning curve (and that openned their eyes REAL WIDE to some of the scammers out there) to determine who was "really in need" and who was just looking for a continous handout.

I think the rule was at least one-time help only unless person(s) who requested help could prove they were in over their heads. but IF they needed to pay rent or something that involved real money, the local SVDPS chapter would not just hand over cash but a check was written directly to the landlord or whomever.

if there was not really an effort to "help themselves" or better their situation, help was withdrawn pretty quick

My Mom and Dad told some pretty wild stories in the beginning. just as we read about on CS you had the EWs the scammers, the "I DON'T gotta do nothin", the whiners, etc, crowd these also exist in the "needy" world.

after a while M&D could spot those who really needed help and those who maybe got one time help and were told to go else where. some just kept coming back for more and did not learn that hmmmmm people talk to each other at area wide meetings AND records were kept (just because they were paper records does not mean that others did not look at them and catalogue people).

This was at least an organized way to help people and to weed out the scammers to a certain point. yeah these scammers would just move on to the next parish or church (Catholic or Chirstian)

you have your few bad apples that tend to ruin it for the larger population.

[KellyHabersham]

My church does have limits regarding how many times a person can be helped per year, but we've also had to start requiring photo I.D. for getting a bus pass because of problems with people coming back and giving different names/addresses. (I couldn't prove for certain that people were scammers, but the couple whom I was most suspicious of quit showing up once we started the photo I.D. policy)

[LexiaFira]

I feel that if a church denies service to someone, being as that it is a church they have to have more proof, reasoning, and just alot in general to back it up as sadly many people would see this as horribly wrong and not hesitate to let said church know about it.

I believe that because its a church its that much more difficult to have to turn someone away because even though it may be for a good reason, it will still be bad.

Or in this case if the church is turning you away you are really screwed or, hey they are on to you. I suppose it very much depends on the person?

[KellyHabersham]

Well, just to get into a few things which caused me to suspect people were scamming/would be good candidates for being banned:

- the food pantry couple each listed themselves as single, living at different addresses, and supposedly each had kids. (meanwhile, I'd see them around the neighborhood, and never once saw any kids with them)

- the wife/girlfriend was always asking for mayonnaise.....apparently she couldn't afford that, but she had plenty of money for cigarettes.

- the husband/boyfriend I've posted about on CS......I'd love to have banned him simply because he was such an asshole about going over the limit for assistance, and because I don't know that he wouldn't have gotten physically violent.

[FArchivist]

I guess the best way to phrase this is - do you believe that a church should have the "right" to refuse service to someone when it comes to providing assistance?

I think they have the right to vet who receives assistance, just as secular charities do, so long as it does not violate Constitutional rights. Like refusing to a protected class.

[Silverharp]

That's the thing with a private organization, they can absolutely refuse to help anyone for no reason at all, and I support this.
One of the reasons when I ilved in Utah and was nearly homeless, was jobless and pretty down, I never went to the LDS church for help (I was raised Mormon in another state, didn't take obviously) because if they knew that I drank, was living in sin, and not a churchgoer that I would have been refused.

[PepperElf]

racketman - wonderful post. this is what i imagine when people suggest creating limits