Should people be arrested for feeding the homeless?

First topic message reminder :

Silly question, isn’t it? Unless you live in Orlando, where members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.

Jessica Cross, Benjamin Markeson and Jonathan McHenry were arrested on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. McHenry is a co-founder of the international Food Not Bombs movement, which began in the early 1980s.

Douglas Coleman, speaking for Orlando Food Not Bombs, said: "They basically carted them off to jail for feeding hungry people”. Orlando Food Not Bombs has been feeding the homeless breakfast on Mondays for several years and dinner on Wednesdays for five years.

Police did not enforce the ordinance while the court battle continued. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled that city rules regulating how often large groups of people can be fed in a park do not violate the Constitution. The penalty for violating Orlando's ordinance is 60 days in jail, a $500 fine or both.

How strange that this could happen in the most religious country in the Western world, where so many people subscribe to stories such as Jesus feeding 5,000 hungry men (no women) with loaves and fishes…(John 6:1-15)

Source used:-
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-homeless-feedings-arrests-20110601,0,7226362.story

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: ....why do we allow inherited wealth? Or usury of any kind where a person hasn't personally grafted for the capital that generates it?

An entire generation of British people have seen the value of the home that they live in increase tenfold; in some cases their house has earned more money than the owner did by going out to work.

The result right now is that young people have to save for years before they can hope to "own" a home of their own, and private landlords prosper.

But there are apparently no votes in proposing any alteration to those circumstances.

oftenwrong wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: ....why do we allow inherited wealth? Or usury of any kind where a person hasn't personally grafted for the capital that generates it?

An entire generation of British people have seen the value of the home that they live in increase tenfold; in some cases their house has earned more money than the owner did by going out to work.

The result right now is that young people have to save for years before they can hope to "own" a home of their own, and private landlords prosper.  

But there are apparently no votes in proposing any alteration to those circumstances.

Odd really when you consider that the vast majority of home-owners only have only one home, and so are unlikely to be able to use the equity in their homes. Until they die and leave it to their children rather ironically. A lot of people use second or even third properties as rentals in place of any real pension, but the money that can potentially be made in short term property development is quite obscene.

My point of course was to point out the double standard by the people who claim a hot meal given for free to someone in want of the most basic necessities encouraged the recipient to believe they're entitled to something for nothing, whereas inheriting obscene wealth doesn't seem to trouble those same people as causing any sort of similar malaise amongst the obscenely wealthy who won't ever need to work at all. As I said I'm missing something as it can't be that simple, can it?