[Cboldt]

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

My point, which you persistently either overloook or reject, is that the code is aimed at externalities, not at the subject matter being discussed on the property; religious meetings is used as an example, not as a particular restriction.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

>>My point, which you persistently either overloook or reject, is that the code is aimed at externalities, not at the subject matter being discussed on the property; religious meetings is used as an example, not as a particular restriction.
<<

WRONG. The code specifies “religious groups.”

That is NOT an externality.

[Netizen]

Good luck. I fear you are beating your head against a wall.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “My point, which you persistently either overloook or reject, is that the code is aimed at externalities, not at the subject matter being discussed on the property; religious meetings is used as an example, not as a particular restriction” <<

Still invalid. The constitution protects the right to gather.

Little if anything done by cities these days is lawful.