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 ...
A violation of the First Amendment if there ever was one.
Are the permits expensive?
If they didn't bother trying and are whining now, they are exactly the sort of blight on the public face of Christianity that we need to avoid. What about being hospitable to your neighbors as well as visitors to your home? If they can't show this is specifically targeted against Christians then they ought to be apologizing for the disruption and annoyance they've caused.
When it comes time to donate to their legal defense fund, I don’t think they will have any trouble getting donors.
>>Are the permits expensive?<<
What part of the FIRST AMENDMENT do you not understand?
Your screenname is certainly a misnomer.
Are you insane?... these people are simple holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home.
Either this statute is being interpreted much too broadly or it’s patently unconstitutional.
Tell them its a Bible Study for illegals.
They’ll wave the permit, fines and even find a program to fund the study.
Probably provide a New 2012 Passenger Van , with insurance and maintenance, free gas.
I’ll probably be in the minority here, but I don’t see anything wrong with that law. When I read the headline, I imagined a study group of 5-8 people and was ready to be outraged. But if my neighbor was having regular functions that brought 20-50 people (for any reason) to his house, I’d be upset because that would negatively affect the use and enjoyment of my property. (And I’m not a curmudgeon. When my neighbors have had parties - even the teen children - we’ve offered the use of our property for parking for their guests. But that’s only once a year or so - not twice weekly.)
From the article it looks like they never bothered to apply for a permit, even after being told about the need for one in May. They claim there is no loud singing/music which ought to make it easy to get the permit, I would think.
Sorry, but as I Christian I have much worse forms of harassment and persecution to worry about then someone whining "How dare they..." after they completely fail to follow simple rules and show thoughtfulness to others.
Are the permits expensive?<<
You obviously have NO UNDERSTANDING of history and why the American Revolution was fought, and precisely why we have the First Amendment.
In colonial days, you would have been a loyal British subject.
They can say what they want. That doesn't give them an excuse to be obnoxious to their neighbors. You obviously don't grasp the distinction between LIBERTY and LICENSE. Seriously, I encourage you to grasp the critical difference between the two. Because these folks are demanding license, while infringing on the liberty of others.
“Did they try to get a permit and were denied for specious reasons?
Are the permits expensive? “
From the posting:
*** 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. ***
You seem to be taking the side of: “The rules are the rules”. Sometimes rules are wrong.
I bet if they were having regular sex parties drawing 50 people, the commies would leave them alone.
Regular gatherings of 3 or more people?
Violates the right of people to gather as they wish.
A birthday party?
A large family?
Just how much control does the state or Federal government think they can ram down our throats?????
Time to check your ammo?
A year ago or so another couple in southern CA had the same problem, when it came down to it, it was all about parking in the neighborhood. The city was claiming they needed a permit not necessarily for the meeting it was the parking.
However, this city may be different.
I find it abhorrent (the permit) regardless how the parking impacts the neighborhood.
Another thread says that they have enough property to park everybody OFF the street.
Beyond taking up street parking, this is none of any neighbor’s business.
This is freedom of assembly.....& freedom of religion....
Sure the rules are sometimes wrong. But there’s no evidence here that these rules are unreasonable. It looks like they didn’t even make a minimal effort to follow them. That sort of self-righteous lawless attitude is contrary to Romans 13.
I could park at least 24 cars on my property. IF I am holding a party or something each week, it is none of anyone’s business.
Change the facts ever so slightly, so the activity is related to a madrassa or mosque, and see how agreeable you are with the traffic of 20-50 people, not members of the household, twice a week.
Wrong. The fine was not about “parking” or “noise” or disturbance of any kind.
And if anyone bothered to read the article, you would have seen that it is not the issue.
The UNCONSTITUTIONAL statute reads as such.
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.
First Amendment:
“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.”
It is a violation of the Constitution, and Liberty 1970, at least, salutes it. Amazing how far we’ve fallen.
Just sounds like old fashioned zoning to me. Bringing dozens of people over multiple times a week does impose costs on neighbors. If you want to start a church, buy a couple acres in a commercial area.
We didn't fight anything.
Nor will we.
Brave men, real men, long ago fought.
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.