Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CALIFORNIA CITY FINES COUPLE FOR HOLDING BIBLE STUDY IN THEIR HOME
TheBlaze.com ^ | 9/19/11 | Madeleine Morgenstern

Posted on 09/19/2011 11:04:53 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: bible; biblestudy; firstamendment; religiousfreedom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-329 next last
To: WayneS

Looks like you won that round. :)


141 posted on 09/19/2011 12:44:19 PM PDT by Netizen (Path to citizenship = Scamnesty. If you give it away, more will come. Who's pilfering your wallet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

No. I am telling you it is not ANY governing body’s business that they meet to read the Bible.


142 posted on 09/19/2011 12:44:43 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
They are TARGETED because of what they are DISCUSSING on their own private property (the Bible).

How do you know this is true? I saw no mention of it in the article.

143 posted on 09/19/2011 12:46:20 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

LOL :)


144 posted on 09/19/2011 12:47:25 PM PDT by Netizen (Path to citizenship = Scamnesty. If you give it away, more will come. Who's pilfering your wallet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

Good analysis (in my opinon).


145 posted on 09/19/2011 12:49:02 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
I have news for you. The "church" are the people, not a building. And in the early "church" they met in one another's homes. There WERE no glorified piles of stone. Nor did any Apostle nor Jesus ever tell anyone to build one.

No governing body has the right to restrict or LICENSE the reading of the Bible in someones home.

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

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves. William Pitt

146 posted on 09/19/2011 12:50:20 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

You didn’t see it in the article?

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

They fell into the “religious” category.

And the only way it can be determined to be “religious” is based on the content; i.e., what they SAY or the literature they distribute within their own home.

They are prohibited from even DISCUSSING the Bible without a permit from the government.

You may not have a problem with this. I do.


147 posted on 09/19/2011 12:56:25 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
-- 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. --

I know it was absurd, I even said so. It was deliberately absurd in order to get you to agree that some land use restrictions are reasonable.

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

Two points. First, the regulation at issue here isn't federal. Second, assuming you meant ANY government is prohibited from regulating religion no matter the setting, do you need me to fabricate another absurd example, or are you, like "Ears", going to say that you have no zoning right in your town or neighborhood to prevent a person buying the house next door and having large services there?

-- 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. --

That's a straw man. I've expressed on this thread, to you, that the reading part is likely not detectable, and that the zoning or use restrictions stand or fall on traffic patterns (and in a later post) and changing the character of the neighborhood.

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

Yeah, well, is that supposed to be an insult directed at me? Or just beating your own chest?

148 posted on 09/19/2011 12:57:13 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Do you have information that the couple in question were holding meetings 8-10 times per month? I did not see that in the article.


149 posted on 09/19/2011 12:57:32 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
That's funny. The potential situation about which I posted is an analogy; it is not a straw man. You, yourself, have posted the text of the city code several times. It makes specific reference to "religious" and "fraternal" organizations.

It almost appears as if you are afraid to answer the question. Why would that be? I mean, people either HAVE 1st Amendment rights, or they don't, right?

150 posted on 09/19/2011 12:57:32 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: djf

NOW you’re talking!


151 posted on 09/19/2011 12:58:28 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

>>It almost appears as if you are afraid to answer the question. Why would that be? I mean, people either HAVE 1st Amendment rights, or they don’t, right?
<<

The First Amendment does not address bikers.

It DOES address the right to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

The issue was NOT traffic or noise, as indicated by the article.

It was the fact that the assemble was religious in nature, and the topic could not be discussed without a Government permit.

Go ahead and defend it all you want.


152 posted on 09/19/2011 1:00:43 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

Twice a week, with about four and a half weeks in (most) months, equals 8 to 10 times per month.


153 posted on 09/19/2011 1:06:05 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't Blame Me, I voted for Kodos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
-- Since that is not what happened, I say we ignore that straw man. --

The biker meeting isn't totally a strawman, seeing as how one finds freedom of peaceable assembly in the 1st amendment.

154 posted on 09/19/2011 1:07:05 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I know it was absurd, I even said so. It was deliberately absurd in order to get you to agree that some land use restrictions are reasonable.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to regulate where and when people can read a Bible.

This isn't a zoning issue.

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

They are specifically targeting religious groups. Tell me what governing body has the RIGHT to regulate the reading of the Bible. That is NOT a strawman.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

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

155 posted on 09/19/2011 1:07:27 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

I think fighting local fights is the least of our worries. Those decisions can be made and unmade relatively easily. Big picture is the freaking feds and the Presidency to influence SCOTUS mix.


156 posted on 09/19/2011 1:10:25 PM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I see where that comes from now. Wednesday Bible study and Sunday services. But 10 times per month is not possible. The most would be 9, since no month has 35 days, unless they also had other meetings not so indicated.


157 posted on 09/19/2011 1:12:03 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Do you have information that the couple in question were holding meetings 8-10 times per month? I did not see that in the article.

I know how to use a calendar, do you? There are 4 weeks per month. Wed and Sun = 2 times per week. 4 x 2 = 8 Some months actually have a partial 5th week, hence the additional day or two. 8 + 1 = 9 and when it does include both an extra wed and sun then it would be 8 + 2 = 10. As an example last month had 4 sundays and 5 wednesdays = 9 so they would have met 9 times that month. May and June both would have given 9 meeting days. May having 5 sundays and 4 wednesdays. Actually there are a lot of months with the extra days making it more likely that they were meeting 9 times per month and not 8, with 9 being the middle of 8 - 10.

Do you need more information than that.

158 posted on 09/19/2011 1:13:23 PM PDT by Netizen (Path to citizenship = Scamnesty. If you give it away, more will come. Who's pilfering your wallet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

You say “generalization,” I say accurate description of conditions by and large. On average. For the most part.

SJC is old, packed, and traffic is a nightmare.

And good law is always based on generalizations. I don’t care what they’re discussing, the Bible or politics or Amway. I’m for the people who don’t want a church/Starbucks/garage sale/party house operating next door with no concern for the residential character of the neighborhood.


159 posted on 09/19/2011 1:17:16 PM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
-- That has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to regulate where and when people can read a Bible. --

Well, yes, land use and reading bibles can intersect. See towns that regulate the building of churches via zoning (not that this case represents a church, I've said it doesn't, and that it isn't a 1st amendment case, even though Fromm argues it is. Presser argued that parade permits were unconstitutional, as long as everybody in the parade is armed - "See 2nd amendment" said he).

-- This isn't a zoning issue. --

Umm, yeah, it is. Well, zoning, or land use, or restriction on use, whatever you want to call it. That snippet of code is a land use regulation, and it aims to be religion neutral by also applying to non-religious activities, "fraternal or non-profit" is in there. And the restriction is narrow, in that it only applies in residential neighborhoods. It also provides a process whereby somebody can seek a waiver, a use permit, if you will.

-- They are specifically targeting religious groups. --

The asshole neighbor might be, for all I know. I don't suspect the town is, as it would stir up quite a hornet's nest.

-- Tell me what governing body has the RIGHT to regulate the reading of the Bible. That is NOT a strawman. --

Well, might not be a strawman, but you need to provide a bit more situational context than "reading the Bible" in order for the question to have any value.

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

You could make that a tagline, then I wouldn't have that reason to think you were trying to be an asshole toward me.

160 posted on 09/19/2011 1:18:32 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-329 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson