Posted on 09/19/2011 11:04:53 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
I attend a first Saturday Rosary meeting in a friend’s house. There are usually about 20 people in attendance. I worry now that there will be a knock on the door one of these times.
Appy, I'm going to just assume that you're being facetious here, since it's absolutely impossible for a FReeper to actually be as astoundingly ignorant of even the basics of American history as you are pretending to be.
I have to admit, you've got Ears going with your little game, however.
Can you point to some supporting facts in the article, or do yoou just feel inclined to assert it was only targeted because it was religious in nature.
That's pretty much the way I see it too. They aren't running an "organization," and the question of whether or not they need a permit to have that number of people on a scheduled basis will come down to traffic and change the character of the neighborhood.
Working against them, as far as I know, they did not apply for and be denied a permit - and the court is going to toss the case until they are turned down by the zoning board or whoever issues use permits.
>>My general point in this thread is that the issue can be viewed as land use, and at some point, most people (but not you) will agree that it’s okay, even constitutional, to have zoning so the residential communities retain their residential character, and aren’t changed by the presence of too many establishments creating traffic, thereby changing the character of the neighborhood.<<
Let’s take “religious liberty” out of the equation for a moment (even though we can’t).
These people are specifically targeted, why? Because of their number? No, that is no even mentioned in the statute.
Because of parking, or noise? No, certainly those are covered in other statutes.
They are TARGETED because of what they are DISCUSSING on their own private property (the Bible).
In other words, they could get together to watch the Superbowl, but not discuss religion. WHAT???
The government is regulating their speech and their thoughts and their communication.
That is NOT America.
I had thought the same thing. Different tune sung then.
Rom 13:1-2 MKJV
(1) Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God.
(2) So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves.
Either this is true or it is a lie. There is nothing in between. I’m just telling you what it says. I can post this as many times as it takes for you to read it. You won’t hurt my feelings if you call it a lie. I didn’t write it.
You can’t tax religion... a ninth grader with google could find Murdock v PA is 45 seconds...
Just write up a notice and demand that the city desist or face a 5 million dollar penalty for each incident and have it served to them.
It prohibits zoning being applied to churches?
This is a private residence.
I can't believe that a "conservative" is arguing for government control of private property and religious issues.
I am not now, nor will I ever be, one of governments Pavlov dogs.
Apparently you're never heard of a thing called "systematic theology."
>>In some locations, zoning laws govern what color your house can be painted too.<<
There is no Constitutional Amendment about your house color.
Their IS a Constitutional Amendment regarding your right to free speech and freedom of religion.
There is also a Constitutional provision for peacefully assembling with no interference from the Government.
I see you place little value on our American Freedoms however. Shame on you.
In my case my family did fight the Revolution. My great, great, great grandfather was only l5 when he joined General Washington and was later captured by the British. So, for me, we did fight for the right to peaceful assembly.
>>Can you point to some supporting facts in the article, or do yoou just feel inclined to assert it was only targeted because it was religious in nature.<<
You apparently did not even bother to read the article.
I will cite the statute itself:
City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.
Land use and zoning issues are treacherously insidious, and in California have become an outrageous impediment to liberty. This is a particularly good example, because it’s both clear and simple enough that everyone can understand the situation, and see both sides of this issue.
The problem is that one neighbor is using his house for an activity that the other neighbors think is overly intensive. One can see their point: if you’ve worked hard and acquired the means to live in a nice quiet residential area, well, you’d probably like it nice and quiet. The problem is that allowing yourself to go down that regulatory road really is a slippery slope: it’s a series of tiny steps from that to “conditional” use permits, CEQUA studies, EIRS — the whole gamut of “discretionary” findings that make it impossible to predict government action, or even it’s reach. Hayek developed this reasoning better that I could ever hope to relate in a posting here, but IMHO, it’s a big deal.
Even worse, this is where you get otherwise solid conservatives to buy into the liberal regime of making everyone ask for permission for...well, practically everything. You get liberal idiots like Anthony Portantino being elected from a Republican stronghold like La Canada here in LA county.
If parking is the issue, then fine, restrict parking. If noise is the issue, then fine, deal with the noise. But restrictive land use policies? No thanks.
That's very debatable. The government is trying to stop them from serving their God in the way they felt they were called to do. I recall a few apostles who were told by the governmen to stop causing a ruckus with their preaching, but they wouldn't.
Well, there is that long-abandoned 9th amendment...
Well, somebody has to panic! ;)
Pay them off, in 150 grains in JHPs, one at a time.
So you are thinking they cannot serve God without meeting in their home.
Let’s say twice a week, 20-50 bikers were gathering for a club meeting at some guy’s house in your neighborhood.
Is it a violation of the 1st Amendment to require the biker group to obtain a special permit to have their meetings in a residential area?
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.