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.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“You got snarky with me first asking where I got that info. “

I did? I thought I was asking a simple question, with an explanation that I did not see it in the article.

I will make a special point to refrain from such dreadfully egregious posts for the remaining 13 days this month. There are 32 days in September, right?

[DJ MacWoW]

My advice is to tell them all “Adieu” and back out. And wait for them to cry when some town makes them jump through hoops to get a permit for a superbowl party. ;-)

[jwalsh07]

SCOTUS has already ruled on this type of case. Basically it goes like this.

If Monday night football parties and poker games aren't zoned out then zoning out things religious is unconstitutional.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>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.<<

They were not cited for traffic problems.

They were cited for having “religious meetings” in their house.

What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

I never thought I’d so many cheering FOR the state and AGAINST liberty.

It’s been an eye-opener.

[Cboldt]

I agree with all three of those founder's quotes, and none of them interferes with a community establishing zoning/use restrictions.

I wonder if the zoning/use regulations were changed after the Fromm's bought the property.

-- You have a nice day. --

Will do.

[noinfringers2]

There is something amiss with this code. The code as stated doesn’t give ‘cause’ for these infractions as to detriment, harm or whatever as to any extent and why not. My first question would be ‘What group or persons would pass such a worded law?. There does seem to be some kind of bias or intention.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

They have no problem with “religious” speech being banned.

I wonder if they would feel the same if you had to obtain a permit to have a political discussion in your own home with, say, 10 friends.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yeah. I’ve had a few of those in 10, no 11, years on here. If my jaw had hit anything by dropping I would have broken it. :-)

[wbill]

It DOES prohibit government interfering with free speech and the right to assemble.

Ok, then, how about a Rock Concert next door to your house?

I agree with you that the law needs to be changed, I find the fact that it specifically mentions religion as offensive as you do.

I *do*, however, understand why such a zoning law exists.

[DJ MacWoW]

I won’t! I forgot the laundry! lol

[Blue Ink]

Hidden Mountain is a gated community, which means it’s not public space. And it also means this church posing as a small bible study would never be permitted to operate there, or in any gated community, per the homeowners association.

You’re unwittingly advancing my argument for the necessity of allowing owners of private property on public streets to be able to reasonably regulate what goes on next door to them. Why should only people with money get to enjoy exclusively residential neighborhoods?

And there’s no “Other than old town and adjacent downtown streets.” Those areas ARE San Juan Capistrano. It’s a small town. And the population is dense, and traffic and parking are a nightmare. Have you ever driven in the center of the town’s original housing? There’s barely room to turn your car around. There’s absolutely no comparison to be made with another OC city like, for example, Irvine.

Oh, and everyone keeps saying the house in question has a barn. So what? How does that translate to parking for fifty cars?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>I agree with you that the law needs to be changed, I find the fact that it specifically mentions religion as offensive as you do.<<

Then I don’t even know why you are disagreeing with me.

I never said traffic or noise statutes should be ignored. NEVER.

But the article points out that these were not the problem.

THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD.

If we agree on that, that is my point.

[EDINVA]

Um, Congress didn’t make this law; the municipality did.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a municipality from setting up its own zoning laws. And, one would imagine, this municipal law was in effect in San Juan Capistrano before the Fromms bought their house.

[Cboldt]

-- SCOTUS has already ruled on this type of case. Basically it goes like this.
If Monday night football parties and poker games aren't zoned out then zoning out things religious is unconstitutional. --

I'm looking for that SCOTUS case, if you have a cite it would be appreciated.

I think it says the same thing I'm saying, that the restriction has to stand on externalities, like noise, parking, traffic, etc.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>Ok, then, how about a Rock Concert next door to your house?
<<

Would probably violate a CONSTITUTIONAL ban on loud noises in the neighborhood.

Prohibiting people from speaking about whatever they want (including religious speech) in their own homes, is UNconstitutional.

[Netizen]

How many days do you think they will meet next Dec?

Calendar for December 2012 (United States)

December

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Phases of the moon: 6: 13: 20: 28:

Holidays and Observances: 24: Christmas Eve, 25: Christmas Day

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>I think it says the same thing I’m saying, that the restriction has to stand on externalities, like noise, parking, traffic, etc. <<

So you’re saying, they can’t require a group to obtain a permit simply on the grounds of their speech (i.e. discussing “religion”?) as this statute requires?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>Oh, and everyone keeps saying the house in question has a barn. So what? How does that translate to parking for fifty cars?<<

Guess what? If they rode in on buses, thereby solving the “traffic” problem (which is not even mentioned), the meeting would still be ILLEGAL without a permit, based on what was being discussed at the meeting.

IOW, you are free to discuss some things in your own home without a permit from the government, but religion isn’t one of them.

That’s not constitutional, and it’s certainly not what the founders intended.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>Um, Congress didn’t make this law; the municipality did.<<

Um, municipalities are no9t allowed to pass laws against free speech or freedom of religion any more than the Federal Government.

The Constitution declares the things that NO governing body within the U.S. can do to curtail liberty.

Um. Um. Um.