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 ...
As an addendum I should add that when I looked to get an example I noticed you wouldn’t get 10, just 9. I forgot to adjust my post. I wasn’t sure if any month started on a wed and ended on sun, not doing the quick math to eliminate that possibility. At any rate the 8-10 leaves an average of 9 and most months do have either the extra wednesday or extra sunday.
Relevant part of Murdock V PA, 319 US 105, decided 1943:
But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax-a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce ( McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33 , 56-58, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., 309 U.S. at page 47, 60 S.Ct. at page 392, 128 A.L.R. 876 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.
Repeat: A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.!!!!
It is not the form of a law, but it’s substance and effect that is important. And this is CLEARLY an attack on religious activity, we know that for a fact because the code even mentions “religious and fraternal” activities.
Hands down unconstitutional.
Not even close.
“If they didn’t bother trying and are whining now, they are exactly the sort of blight on the public face of Christianity that we need to avoid.”
Your comment is total BS!
“If it weren’t weekly it probably wouldn’t be so bad.”
What’s bad about it?
What's that supposed to mean? Are you implying that "bikers" lack the right to peacefully assemble without government interference simply because they are not specifically addressed in the First Amendment?
I hope not, because that would be just as ridiculous as someone arguing that "Christians" lack the right to religious freedom simply because "Christianity" is not specifically addressed in the First Amendment.
Don't worry, though, by reading between the lines I have obtained the answer to my original question.
You even appear to recognize the hypocrisy of supporting restrictions on the rights of some groups while espousing unfettered freedom for groups with whom you agree. You also appear to be uncomfortable facing that hypocrisy, so you resort to accusing people of making "straw man" arguments and to making lame statements like "The First Amendment does not address bikers".
It's too bad, too, because I support your basic premise regarding the 1st Amendment -- we appear to differ in that I think ALL of those freedoms (not just religious ones) should be protected for everyone, and you seem to care only about the religious rights of Christians.
This isn't a church. It is a private residence that includes a 4,700-square-foot home with a barn and coral. Tell me what government body has the RIGHT to regulate whether they can read the Bible in their home with 20 to 50 people. WHERE does a governments power come from? The people? Or force?
code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.
Tell me where this governing body derives the power from to restrict religious activities in a private home.
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.
Capistrano Couple in Legal Battle for Hosting Bible Study in Home
“There’s no singing or music,” she said. “It’s meditative.”
You could make that a tagline, then I wouldn't have that reason to think you were trying to be an asshole toward me.
Why do you think that any government body can regulate why people meet in your home? The idea is absurd.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
“...when it does include both an extra wed and sun then it would be 8 + 2 = 10...”
Show us a month in the last 100 years that had 5 Sundays and 5 Wednesdays.
Nonsense. The Constitution is a charter document for the U.S. Federal government. These city officials could have hauled the couple out and raped and shot them, and they wouldn't have violated the Constitution. Only Federal agents/officials can do that. The city officials would have broken other laws, but not the U.S. Constitution because it places no restrictions on local governments. (Rather the opposite - cf. the 9th amendment.)
“Do you need more information than that.””
Yes.
The article states the meetings were held on Sundays and Wednesdays. In order to have 10 such meetings in a month, that month would have to have 32 days.
Are you sure your expertise in using the calender is as polished as you claim?
I must be the exception to the rule.
Setting religion aside, if my next-door neighbor was having 20-50 people over to his house on a twice-weekly basis for any reason, I'd likely not be very happy with him. Just dealing with the added traffic would be a problem. Zoning rules generally exist for a purpose. As a previous poster noted, there's a reason why you can't open a Starbucks in your garage.
I've no knowledge of the situation beyond what I've read here, but it sounds to me like a problem caused by two (maybe more) hard-headed neighbors and complicated by a bunch of empty headed bureaucrats. Seems that a simple solution would be for this religious service to meet at a public place (church? town hall? library? public park?) and call it "resolved".
That having been said, the law in question specifically mentioning "religion" needs to be changed. That's a problem, no doubt.
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.
So the government comes and says “You are violating an existing zoning decree”. These people respond “We are not subject to the zoning decree because we refuse to be subject to the authority of the government. We no longer recognize its authority because we disagree with it. If we agree with a given law, then we will recognize its authority”. If some nutbag walks into the Bible Study with a gun and threatens to kill them because he doesn’t recognize the authority of the murder laws, the Bible Study will immediately recognize the authority of the government and call the police.
The rational thing to do is to change the law because it is an unjust law. But that takes time and effort. Screw that.
It’s the same thing that people do when they have sex in a public park. “I know there are laws against sex in a public park but my desire to have sex in the park overrules that law and negates its authority”.
Better yet, what if a college fraternity moves into the house next to the “home church”. I wonder what the owners of the home church will do?
“Hey there are zoning decrees against fraternal meetings here”.
Simply not true. That’s what incorporation is all about. The first amendment applies to everything congress does and also applies to everything your local dog-catcher does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
There are many neighborhoods in SJC are no more than 20 to 30 years old. The Hidden Mountain development, for example, dates back to about 1980 or so. Others are newer. Other than old town and adjacent downtown areas, the city does not have streets substantially more narrow than other parts of Orange County.
Already address it
The issue is not free speech. They can say whatever they want. Causing congestion and other issues in the neighborhood is distinct from free speech issues.
The Founders were not idiots, and I would ask the folks on this thread try not to be as well. Free exercise of religion doesn't mean you can create various problems for other people when you can easily adjust your practice in non-essential ways to acommodate your neighbors.
The perfect example would be Muslims praying in the streets in France, blocking traffic. Somehow I doubt most of the people on this thread supporting this couple would be fine with a bunch of Muslims blocking their street every day for prayers. We can have free exercise of religion without being obnoxious about it.
I've posted dozens of threads on FR over the years reporting on the persecution and martyrdom of Christians around the world, often under horrific circumstances. This sort of 'ugly Christian' syndrome of petty, law-breaking self-righteousness does _nothing_ to advance the cause of Christ.
According to who? What these people told this news source?
According to the article, they've likely got upwards of 30 or 40 plus vehicles coming into their neighborhood twice every week...That's 8 times a month...lol
Ya don't think this is starting to piss off the neighbors?
Get real.
Already explained that and at any rate its better than yours.
That probably would be the best resolution all around. if they want to be a church so badly, then let them just start one, find a storefront, etc.
I *do* think that the law needs to be re-worded. That's what seems to be the problem, here.
Wonder how many of these "I can do what I want with my property, and you can't stop me" posters would feel about having a dog kennel open up next door to them? Or better yet, a hog farm? Strawman argument? I don't think so.
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.