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 ...
>>The difference seems to be about 40 people and their cars.<<
WRONG. The statute addresses content of the meeting. RELIGIOUS GROUPS are targeted.
You know this, and you can’t possibly be so stupid as to not see it.
Until you acknowledge the statute itself, and what it says in black and white, I am wasting my time.
Probably not. Definitely not if there were just a few meetings. But if you asked whether or not zoning could regulate a twice-weekly meeting of 50 Freepers at one residential location, my answer would be that it depends on the zoning, and on the existing character of the residential neighborhood.
We are not talking about that, this thread is about the code violation. You are veering off into a side issue. We have laws/codes for a reason.
Take care. I’m not wasting anymore time on this! LOL
Kinda sorta doesn’t matter in the least what the intent is.
It’s the effect. If the effect of a law or code is a suppression or diminution of a Constitutionally guaranteed right, then it’s (the law) is in jeopardy.
And in this case, since the codes specifically mention religious activities, it’s a no brainer.
And ALL ARGUMENTS about Hells Angels meetings or rock concerts or hog farms, those are just smoke screens, as the court will look at ACTUAL CONTROVERSY, not hypotheticals or “what ifs”.
You know what? If you'd read on before shooting off your mouth, you'd have seen that it was purposely an exaggerated hypothetical, used to probe the point of whether or not zoning of churches is proper AT ALL.
Now, I'm going to disengage myself from responding to you for awhile, give you a chance to read my remarks, and then, after you have the complete context of where I'm coming from, your remarks criticizing or agreeing with my point of view will be more on point and substantive.
That's not necessary, if you had read the article, you would have found that the Fromme family are already being represented.....
A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city
Well, I did say that you persistently reject my contention as to what the code is aimed at. FWIW, I have the benefit of actually looking at the code (I linked it in a post to you), and also have the benefit of arguing use code before the local town.
Thanks. No sweat. I'm indifferent about persuading the opponent in argument, and once I've satisfied myself I've "well said" what I have to say, I quit.
I have a feeling this thread is going to go through several repeats, as new people join.
Some people get confused and use home/church to mean the same thing.
Your words.
The town has not deemed them an annoyance for noise or traffic. They simply want money. Tell me, if they held Bible studies in a public park pavilion, would that make it a "church"?
As I stated before, we're dealing with facts here so you're the one shooting off their mouth..So what are the facts here Choldt, 40 cars or 2000???
You like arguing with hypotheticals? Here's one for ya: What if the Chinese launch an all out nuclear attack on the United States tomorrow, you think that next Wednesday the community authorities will give a rats ass about the Fromme bible study gatherings?
Just deal with the facts dude.......
“as the court will look at ACTUAL CONTROVERSY, not hypotheticals or “what ifs”.”
Did you even read my entire post? I cited an ACTUAL CONTROVERSY in my backyard — but unfortunately for the homeowners, the court has already decided that the religious freedom rights of the people operating the church/synagogue/mosque trump all the rights of all the other homeowners combined.
And the court is wrong, because all the rights Americans enjoy, including those of religious freedom, derive from property rights.
Put it another way: if there is no right to property, there is no freedom of religion. And Mr. Jefferson backs me up on this.
The articular states
“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.”
These are probably Million dollar plus homes in the neighborhood.
It also states
“, the city’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning they only respond to complaints.”
Somebody is complaining about the meetings. All parties in this case seem to have a nice incomes.
Check your cities codes, I would expect most cities have similar codes.
Restricting scheduled meets of any groups of a certain size or larger in a private residence. Size and how often will be the common factor in these laws.
Would Kalifornia require a permit of muslims? Would they require a permit of cults like Heaven’s Gate or Jim Jones? Would they require a permit of somebody like Warren Jeffs who rapes 12 year old girls in the name of religion? Of course not! The weirder and sicker the “religion” the more it is protected speech in Kalifornia. Only Christians can be persecuted in a place like Kalifornia.
Not any more, in response to you.
I didn’t say anything about DMFOHE representing them; I suggested he FUND it. You don’t think the PJI will be looking for funding? ha!
” ...we’re talking about a family inviting church friends over for bible study.”
Actually, this is about holding Sunday services at their home. Where’s their church if they’re going to the Frommes home for their Sunday services?
This isn’t the kind of Bible Study that your local church holds. This IS their church.
>>I have a feeling this thread is going to go through several repeats, as new people join.
<<
Oh well, you are worthy opponents. I’ll see ya on the other 99% of threads, where we no doubt agree. :-)
So what?
Once again, where does the Constitution say that you must have a permit to conduct bible study or worship in your house?
Well, they can play that too, if they like.
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.