I know it was absurd, I even said so. It was deliberately absurd in order to get you to agree that some land use restrictions are reasonable.
-- The federal government is prohibited from regulating religion no matter the setting. --
Two points. First, the regulation at issue here isn't federal. Second, assuming you meant ANY government is prohibited from regulating religion no matter the setting, do you need me to fabricate another absurd example, or are you, like "Ears", going to say that you have no zoning right in your town or neighborhood to prevent a person buying the house next door and having large services there?
-- These people are not making noise as there is no signing and they have a large property. Explain to me why gathering to read the Bible should be regulated by any government entity. --
That's a straw man. I've expressed on this thread, to you, that the reading part is likely not detectable, and that the zoning or use restrictions stand or fall on traffic patterns (and in a later post) and changing the character of the neighborhood.
-- I am not now, nor will I ever be, one of governments Pavlov dogs. --
Yeah, well, is that supposed to be an insult directed at me? Or just beating your own chest?
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with trying to regulate where and when people can read a Bible.
This isn't a zoning issue.
code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.
They are specifically targeting religious groups. Tell me what governing body has the RIGHT to regulate the reading of the Bible. That is NOT a strawman.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
I am an American. I am not now, nor will I ever be, one of governments Pavlov dogs.