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 ...
18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
Acts 5:27-29
27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!
Bingo.
Government power comes from both, the people; and from force.
The government body that is regulating this is the local town. I'm not sure you've fully grasped that this isn't a 1st amendment case, much as you strive to make it into one. The activity being restricted is traffic, and the interests being protected are public safety (traffic flow and accidents) and character of the neighborhood. Those are legitimate public interests.
-- Why do you think that any government body can regulate why people meet in your home? --
Now THAT is a strawman, a position I have never taken, nor do I advocate it. The motive for the meetings is irrelevant. The same restriction applies if they are March of Dimes.
>>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
<<
If traffic is the issue, regulate that.
But I am referring to the STATUTE which prohibits “religious groups” from meeting.
According to the statute, that is not permitted no matter how many are in attendance.
And that is unconstitutional.
>>The activity being restricted is traffic<<
Wrong. Traffic is not mentioned ONCE in the statute.
The statute prohibits “religious groups” from meeting.
They are being targeted for the content of the meeting, not the number of those in attendance.
Unconstitutional.
Are you insane?
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.
Ya don't think this is starting to piss off the neighbors?
Get real.
In nearly ALL instances I'm aware of, silly-ass "politcal correctness" is superseded by the CONSTITUTION.
>>...dog kennel open up next door to them? Or better yet, a hog farm? >>
The First Amendment does not prohibit the regulation of hog farms.
It DOES prohibit government interfering with free speech and the right to assemble.
And if you are familiar with American History in the least, you know that the right to assemble in homes for religious worship was one of the things the Revolution was fought for.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear.
I missed the part of the article that states when the meetings were held when I addressed another poster asking where he got that information. After his response, I posted that “I see where that comes from now.”
For some reason, you saw fit to jump in with a snarky comment questioning my ability to read the calender. That issue remains unsolved, but your expertise in that regard has clearly been established.
>>The motive for the meetings is irrelevant.<<
Not according to the statute. It prohibits “religious groups” from assembling.
Unconstitutional.
No irony whatsoever that the town is named San Juan Capistrano. None.
But, the headline is misleading. The fine is more likely for the Sunday service than the Wednesday evening bible study.
>>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. <<
Who says they want to be a “church”? Have you never heard of a home Bible study, which is distinct from a church?
1.an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2.a congregation; church.
Latin - Greek ekklēsía assembly
You got snarky with me first asking where I got that info. I at least read it.
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientid=16607
You click on Title 9, then Chapter 3. I actually cannot discern where the applicable statue can be found. I guess the city is saying the couple are running a church outside of the area zoned for that purpose. I cannot find the exact verbiage as stated in the article.
That happens to be the effect in this case, but that is just becuase this group is couducting something denominated "religious." The same state prohibits the use (which is really a pattern of use) if they were the Rotarians, having two BBQ's a week.
-- Traffic is not mentioned ONCE in the statute. --
I'm not going to read the entire statutory scheme for the community, and I urge you to not jumpt to the conclusion that "traffic" and "character of the neighborhood" are not legal criteia in what is enforcible, and what is not.
-- Unconstitutional. --
They hold Sunday services for @ 50 people in their home. That, in effect, makes them a ‘church.’ Fully 1/3 of Episcopal Church parishes, recent studies showed, don’t have that high an attendance. The Wednesday Bible study alone wouldn’t create this problem for them.
"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived." James Madison
"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
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. Patrick Henry
You have a nice day.
>>...and you seem to care only about the religious rights of Christians. “
I hope you didn’t break your leg jumping to that conclusion.
The issue is WAY larger than merely “the religious rights of Christians.”
It is about the government’s overreach, to supercede the Constitution, curtail the liberties the Founding Fathers sought to preserve, and having idiots on Free Republic cheer on tyranny while jeering at liberty.
Exactly.
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.