That happens to be the effect in this case, but that is just becuase this group is couducting something denominated "religious." The same state prohibits the use (which is really a pattern of use) if they were the Rotarians, having two BBQ's a week.
-- Traffic is not mentioned ONCE in the statute. --
I'm not going to read the entire statutory scheme for the community, and I urge you to not jumpt to the conclusion that "traffic" and "character of the neighborhood" are not legal criteia in what is enforcible, and what is not.
-- Unconstitutional. --
>>I’m not going to read the entire statutory scheme for the community, and I urge you to not jumpt to the conclusion that “traffic” and “character of the neighborhood” are not legal criteia in what is enforcible, and what is not.<<
They were not cited for traffic problems.
They were cited for having “religious meetings” in their house.
What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?
“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.”