CALIFORNIA CITY FINES COUPLE FOR HOLDING BIBLE STUDY IN THEIR HOME

TheBlaze.com ^ | 9/19/11 | Madeleine Morgenstern

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.

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. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.

“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”

According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>All I said was this is standard zoning. Standard zoning may be unconstitutional but this is nothing unusual.<<

We are hearing more and more about such unconstitutional abuse.

But if we get to the point where so-called conservatives roll over and “accept” it instead of standing up to it, (and some are openly advocating that here), and we actually begin defending the State against those who want to enjoy their liberty...

then we have turned a dangerous corner in the road and in are in worse shape than I imagined.

[DJ MacWoW]

Several points from the article, it is ONE neighbor complaining. The properties are large so parking is not an issue nor is noise. They have no music or signing.

I'd like to know if this single neighbor complains about lawn mowers on Sunday morning.

[marychesnutfan]

If this happened to be Muslims gathering each week in those numbers I think comments here might be different.

I agree with others who say this has gone beyond a simple, small (read that few to say 8-10) people and is nearly a business and should be functioning as such.

Frankly on the scale indicated I wouldn’t care for it either and ESPECIALLY if they just happened to be from the ROP which could very well happen nowadays.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>Let’s say twice a week, 20-50 bikers were gathering for a club meeting at some guy’s house in your neighborhood.<<

Since that is not what happened, I say we ignore that straw man.

[DJ MacWoW]

Is it any governments business where they meet?

[brownsfan]

“But there’s no evidence here that these rules are unreasonable. “

In your estimation?

It seems to me that if you buy a home, and a piece of property, and you want to have regular visitors, that should be a reasonable use.

Also, where do you draw the line? Do you want to have to contact the authorities for any activity that goes beyond sitting in your living room watching TV?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>I agree with others who say this has gone beyond a simple, small (read that few to say 8-10) people and is nearly a business and should be functioning as such.<<

In your mind, what specific number of people does it have to be in order for Government to regulate their “peaceful assembly” and right to exercise free speech?

Please be specific.

[Netizen]

The LAW applies to all on all days at all times.

Glad we agree, they were in violation of the law and cited for it.

[DJ MacWoW]

I agree with others who say this has gone beyond a simple, small (read that few to say 8-10) people and is nearly a business and should be functioning as such.

Meeting to read the Bible should be viewed as a BUSINESS?!

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>I agree with others who say this has gone beyond a simple, small (read that few to say 8-10) people and is nearly a business and should be functioning as such.<<

The statute does not regulate the NUMBER of people assembling.

It regulates WHAT THEY CAN SAY when they are assembled. They cannot DISCUSS the BIBLE without obtaining a permit.

Does that sound like what the founding fathers had in mind to you?

>>municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.<<

[Cboldt]

-- Your analogy is ridiculous and you know it. --

Well, so was your blanket challenge "that people are not allowed to use their home anytime they wish to entertain in any manner they wish?" Fact of the matter is, no, you aren't. There are all sorts of restrictions, most of the reasonable so nobody gets jacked-up over them.

-- The federal Constitution prohibits [regulation of "religious, fraternal or non-profit" organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.] --

It prohibits zoning being applied to churches?

-- This is a private residence. --

Yes it is. But you said that the constitution prohibits [what you said, above], and one of those is churches.

-- I can't believe that a "conservative" is arguing for government control of private property and religious issues. --

Land use restrictions are pretty common. It's unusual to find a person saying they are unconstitutional.

-- I am not now, nor will I ever be, one of governments Pavlov dogs. --

So, can I put that tankcar load of gunpowder on my property, next to YOUR house?

Yeah, I know, that's a nuts example.

But land use is not an unconstitutional undertaking by the government, and sometimes land use is applied to an organization that is a church (not that this is, and I've argued this case is decided simply on "character of the neighborhood" grounds).

[WayneS]

No one wants to live next door to a perpetual yard sale.

For me, that would be entirely dependent on whether the proprietor kept a good stock of very-good to excellent condition used firearms in his inventory...

;-)

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>So you are thinking they cannot serve God without meeting in their home<<

No one said any such thing. That is the most idiotic straw man argument I’ve seen in a while.

[djf]

Or 18 yr old Scotch!

[Netizen]

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.

Probably not an issue since its once a month not 8 - 10 times a month with upwards of 50 people.

[AppyPappy]

“Is it any governments business where they meet?”

I would think the answer is obvious because they got fined.

I think you are asking “Should it be the government’s business?”

[353FMG]

They should have wrapped their bibles with a cover making them look like a Koran and gone into the house wearing burqas and filthy night shirts.

[AppyPappy]

You aren’t very good at this. Why don’t you ask an adult for help?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

You’re the one making the straw man arguments.

[DJ MacWoW]

Well, so was your blanket challenge "that people are not allowed to use their home anytime they wish to entertain in any manner they wish?"

Um, no. Having company on a property big enough for a barn and coral is quite different than a tanker of explosives. Your analogy was absurd.

The federal government is prohibited from regulating religion no matter the setting.

These people are not making noise as there is no signing and they have a large property. Explain to me why gathering to read the Bible should be regulated by any government entity.

I am not now, nor will I ever be, one of governments Pavlov dogs.