Madison Ave, NYC seems to have a different Code
/sarc
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 point of the nutty hypothetical was to see if you thought the 1st amendment always trums zoning. You say it does.<<
It most certainly does. That’s why it’s the “First” amendment.
Sadly, though, the First Amendment has been lawyered to death, and many Americans are so clueless about American history that they don’t see any problem with “religious zoning,” to where they think religious liberty requires a permit from the state.
Shameful.
They have no greater right to peaceable Sundays without traffic than others do to peaceable Thursdays without traffic, or peaceable Fridays without traffic, or peaceable Saturdays without traffic, etc.
The LAW applies to all on all days at all times.
When the law singles out RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY, that's simply prohibited by the Constitution!
Excuse me? So you actually think it is okay for a city, state or federal government to require people to get permits before having people over to your house? In fact, according to the article, "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." Three people? Good grief!
What about being hospitable to your neighbors as well as visitors to your home?
As stated in the article, "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."
It appears that this whole thing came about because of one person complaining. If you've never had a cranky neighbor that complained about everything everyone in the neighborhood does, then you are fortunate.
I can't believe someone on FR actually thinks it is okay that a city require permits if you want to host people in your own home.
I agree with that, and I am pissed at the current state of "free exercise" jurisprudence, e.g., prayer in the schools.
My general point in this thread is that the issue can be viewed as land use, and at some point, most people (but not you) will agree that it's okay, even constitutional, to have zoning so the residential communities retain their residential character, and aren't changed by the presence of too many establishments creating traffic, thereby changing the character of the neighborhood. Just put the church a mile or two "over there," and most everybody is okay with that restriction.
As to the precise case in hand, I don't know enough about the character of the neighborhood to have any sense of the change attributable to the described twice-weekly meeting.
Maybe they can rotate the gathering to the 10-20 households that now gather at Fromm's. Or relocate to somebody else's house.
A more reasonable law would be requiring a temporary permit for any gathering over a specific number of people.
Peter and the apostles disobeyed the “authorities” who told them not to preach in the name of Christ.
And were right in doing so.
Period.
The Revolutionaries were not acting as Christians. They were acting as citizens. There were non-Christians among them.
I expect a church to obey Romans 13. Trust me, the Christians in Rome were getting it a lot worse than anyone in this story.
This is from the article. They weren't “obnoxious to their neighbors”. This was not taking up all the parking spots in the neighborhood or creating a noise problem. This is religious persecution pure and simple. They government says they can't have 3 guests in their home without a permit. This is government control freak bureaucrats on a power trip.
Probably not an issue here since I don't see anything in the article whereby the Fromm's meetings are specifically designated as a "church," either colloquially or legally. As such, from the wording provided in the city code itself, their meetings don't qualify, and therefore aren't regulated by that code. From the viewpoint of what the municipal code actually says, their meetings seem to have about the same legal existence as somebody having a football game party at their home every Sunday.
To some folks they aren't different but they can go stuff it ~ they are simply in the wrong country and should go find one of the other 134 in this world where things are different.
That is an oversweeping generalization that does not apply to many parts of the city.
Rom 13:1-6 MKJV
(1) Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God.
(2) So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves.
I’m just telling you what it says. If you think God is wrong when He says this, that is your business. I didn’t write it.
>>The Revolutionaries were not acting as Christians. They were acting as citizens. <<
So George Washington was “compartmentalizing” and separating his acts as a Christian from his acts as a “citizen?”
And when he prayed for his soldiers, which was he being, a Christian or a “citizen”?
What a load of RUBBISH. lol
You are twisting yourself into pretzels.
You’ve completely ignored the other scriptures, and have no answer.
I am done with this line of baloney, as you are not a serious person.
LOL. You apparent don't know that in Judaea in the 1st century (at least prior to the revolt in 68 AD), the Romans allowed the religious leaders (i.e. Sanhedrin) to retain significant, almost complete, authority of religion in Judaea. The religious leaders WERE the authority, in the matter under question.
In some locations, zoning laws govern what color your house can be painted too.
If this is news to you, you have no knowledge of reality.
All I said was this is standard zoning. Standard zoning may be unconstitutional but this is nothing unusual.
Madison Ave, NYC seems to have a different Code
/sarc
A birthday party of 20 - 50 people, twice a week? Every week? Really?
A large family?
Again, 20 - 50 people living in one house? C'mon.
Rom 13:1-6 MKJV
(1) Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God.
(2) So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves.
I’m just telling you what it says. I didn’t write it.
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.