Posted on 09/19/2011 11:04:53 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
Netizen, if you are addressing what I stated, it is courtesy to include me in the “To” box,
That said, “He also said “the meeting would still be ILLEGAL without a permit, based on what was being discussed at the meeting.”
I stand by that. What makes a “religious group” a “religious group”?
It is what they SAY, DO, or the LITERATURE pass out.
I am not limiting this to “religious speech.”
My point is government toes not have the right to require a permit for ANY speech in someone’s home.
Would you be okay if the government required a permit for you and ten of your friends to to discuss Obama in your home?
What’s the big difference, liberty-wise?
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.
Obviously you didn't read the entire article......
Makes it hard to prohibit discrimination based on [that forbidden word].
-- They have no authority to determine if a meeting is "religious" in nature! --
I think the religious nature of the meeting is being raised as a defense to the charge. IOW, "we can have as many people as we want, any time we want, as long as it's religion and we are quiet."
The zoning question is the impact of the activity on the character of the residential neighborhood. I linked to the town code above, if you want to look up the terms or art that town uses to restrict uses and otherwise enact zoning/use.
Just ask them if the government can ban a dozen freepers from gathering at
their homes to study Obama.
You're really stretching the facts now, who claims that they are being obnoxious to their neighbors????????
oh are wee going back prior to 300 AD? We can regress past the 6th century muslims.
>>Just ask them if the government can ban a dozen freepers from gathering at their homes to study Obama.<<
Exactly. Same thing. Let’s hear a defense of that, or an explanation of how that is somehow “different.”
There's really no ifs, ands or buts about it.
The Constitution has that expression "Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So, there it is.
How about this? If you are so convinced that this is a Constitutional issue, why don’t you fund the Frommes’ taking it to court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and see just how far you get by casting this as a First Amendment question. I would cheer your victory if you had one.
>>Just ask them if the government can ban a dozen freepers from gathering at their homes to study Obama.<<
Courtesy “jwalsh07.”
>>Just ask them if the government can ban a dozen freepers from gathering at their homes to study Obama.<<
Courtesy “jwalsh07.”
My point, which you persistently either overloook or reject, is that the code is aimed at externalities, not at the subject matter being discussed on the property; religious meetings is used as an example, not as a particular restriction.
The difference seems to be about 40 people and their cars.
False argument, we're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about a family inviting church friends over for bible study.......
>>My point, which you persistently either overloook or reject, is that the code is aimed at externalities, not at the subject matter being discussed on the property; religious meetings is used as an example, not as a particular restriction.
<<
WRONG. The code specifies “religious groups.”
That is NOT an externality.
You don't seem to grasp just "what" or "who" the church is. You seem to think it's a building. So, is it what God says it is or man?
There is no indication in the article that that is the case.........It's all about the required permit.
Look, if the intent of the statute is really to regulate religious speech... then I think everyone on FR agrees with you. It’s absurd and has to be voided.
But I don’t think that was the intent; I agree with the poster who said the aim is to regulate ongoing constant large gatherings in residential neighborhoods.
And like I said before in an earlier post, I have experience with this in my neighborhood. Four miles away, a church/synagogue/mosque (I won’t say which, because it doesn’t matter) is operating out of a house on a cul-de-sac. Everyone else’s lives have been made miserable by the traffic, lack of parking, noise... all the problems associated with operating something that isn’t a single-family home in a neighborhood of single-family homes.
Does it matter that the neighbors bought there and not downtown so they didn’t have to live next door to a business? Do you think the people on either side of that church/synagogue/mosque can ever sell their homes for a reasonable price? Their property was in effect confiscated. How is that equality before the law?
There is nothing wrong or even un-Christian about zoning boarding houses, drug offender halfway houses, sex offender halfway houses, perpetual garage sales, or — yes — even CHURCHES out of single-family home neighborhoods. It’s called “self-governance.”
Good luck. I fear you are beating your head against a wall.
You have no idea how many cars are there.
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.