CALIFORNIA CITY FINES COUPLE FOR HOLDING BIBLE STUDY IN THEIR HOME

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

[Netizen]

They didn't pass a law against free speech. They simply are telling them that with that many people gathering, to do it elsewhere. I'm guessing that 50 people in the home for Sunday services every week, might be a fire code violation as well. They may have just given one code, but if pursued they may find other violations to really hit them with.

[Netizen]

In 2015 Christmas falls on a Friday, so they will probably meet 10 days that month, too!

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>They simply are telling them that with that many people gathering, to do it elsewhere.<<

Wrong. The statute does not pertain to the number in attendance, it specifically prohibits the *content* (religious speech) without a permit.

The main problem I have with it is they are SPECIFICALLY regulating religious speech. What business is it of the government’s to determine what can or cannot be SAID, or what literature can be distributed in someone’s home?

In other words, there is no regulation of people throwing a keg party or a Superbowl party, or having fifty friends a week over.

But “religious groups” are specifically mentioned.

[Cboldt]

-- 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? --

You are misreading the statute, not only isolating one paragraph of a fairly lengthy statutory scheme, but also isolating one use within that paragraph. I don't know if you are doing so deliberately or not. The statue is not "Only religious use requires a permit," which is the meaning and function you are stubbornly asserting.

San Juan Capistrano, California - Code of Ordinances - TITLE 9. - LAND USE - CHAPTER 3 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND STANDARDS

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>The statue is not “Only religious use requires a permit,” which is the meaning and function you are stubbornly asserting.<<

I never suggested anything of the kind. I don’t know if you are misrepresenting what I said deliberately or not.

And it’s “statute” not “statue.”

Perhaps that was a typo, I’m known for typos now and again myself.

[Netizen]

Yes you did. you said

The main problem I have with it is they are SPECIFICALLY regulating religious speech.

[Netizen]

I think the problem is that they are running a church in a residential area. Some people get confused and use home/church to mean the same thing. Easy mistake. NOT

[Cboldt]

-- I don't know if you are misrepresenting what I said deliberately or not. --

Yeah, I definitely phrased that incorrectly. Try this. You are asserting that the citation was given BECAUSE the use is a religious use. IOW, some other uses with the same externalities are permitted.

-- Perhaps that was a typo, I'm known for typos now and again myself. --

I make 'em often.

[EDINVA]

You know, DNMFOHE .. you might do well to go take a class in Constitutional law before you make these statements. This is NOT a Constitutional issue, no matter how much you may want and strive to make it one.

[Hot Tabasco]

Did they try to get a permit

Since when did our constitution require that citizens of this country require a permit to gather amongst themselves to study the bible?

You don't get it do you?

[muawiyah]

Alas, the government is not privileged to regulate religion ~ which is what they did in this case. EOS!

[Hot Tabasco]

I’d be upset because that would negatively affect the use and enjoyment of my property.

A private, indoor Bible study would have such a negative impact? You're kidding us, right????????

[DJ MacWoW]

Some people get confused and use home/church to mean the same thing. Easy mistake. NOT

Until 300AD it WAS the same thing. Where did Jesus charge the Apostles to go build a stone edifice?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>The main problem I have with it is they are SPECIFICALLY regulating religious speech.
<<

I didn’t say that was the ONLY issue.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>This is NOT a Constitutional issue, no matter how much you may want and strive to make it one.This is NOT a Constitutional issue, no matter how much you may want and strive to make it one.<<

It most certainly is, and it is a liberty issue, no matter how much you try to spin it.

[muawiyah]

The STATE isn't even permitted to say "religion" or "religious" in constructing it's laws. They have no authority to determine if a meeting is "religious" in nature!

Government not only must show strict neutrality (not picking between one religion and another) they must show OFFICIAL blindness to its existence.

Religion is also not commercial in nature (no matter what the atheists and ex-Catholics and ex-Lutherans think) so it may not be regulated as a commercial enterprise.

[Cboldt]

He also said "the meeting would still be ILLEGAL without a permit, based on what was being discussed at the meeting."

But I think my initial summary of Ears's read of the statute was wrong, just the same.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

I’ll ask you the same question HT asked:

“Since when did our constitution require that citizens of this country require a permit to gather amongst themselves to study the bible?”

[Hot Tabasco]

I’d be upset because that would negatively affect the use and enjoyment of my property

Just out of curiosity, what kind of bible studies have you attended that would cause you to raise your alarm flag?

[muawiyah]

One of my great grandmothers believed in "the home as a holy place" and she placed bounds around it so that she could go outside on Sunday.

There are still many millions of Americans who hold to this belief. Some who worship/pray on Friday evening through Saturday Sundown even place bounds around their whole neighborhood so they can go outside and walk around beyond their yard or apartment.

There are variations for a number of non Judeo-Christian religions but the concept is pretty much the same.

It is not the privilege of government in America to speak up about these practices.