[Cboldt]

He also said "the meeting would still be ILLEGAL without a permit, based on what was being discussed at the meeting."

But I think my initial summary of Ears's read of the statute was wrong, just the same.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

Netizen, if you are addressing what I stated, it is courtesy to include me in the “To” box,

That said, “He also said “the meeting would still be ILLEGAL without a permit, based on what was being discussed at the meeting.”

I stand by that. What makes a “religious group” a “religious group”?

It is what they SAY, DO, or the LITERATURE pass out.

I am not limiting this to “religious speech.”

My point is government toes not have the right to require a permit for ANY speech in someone’s home.

Would you be okay if the government required a permit for you and ten of your friends to to discuss Obama in your home?

What’s the big difference, liberty-wise?