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 ...
>>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.
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.
>>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.
The main problem I have with it is they are SPECIFICALLY regulating religious speech.
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
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.
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.
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?
Alas, the government is not privileged to regulate religion ~ which is what they did in this case. EOS!
A private, indoor Bible study would have such a negative impact? You're kidding us, right????????
Until 300AD it WAS the same thing. Where did Jesus charge the Apostles to go build a stone edifice?
>>The main problem I have with it is they are SPECIFICALLY regulating religious speech.
<<
I didn’t say that was the ONLY issue.
>>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.
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.
But I think my initial summary of Ears's read of the statute was wrong, just the same.
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?”
Just out of curiosity, what kind of bible studies have you attended that would cause you to raise your alarm flag?
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.
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.