>>For “Ears” benefit, note that it is permissible to have land-use restrictions apply to religious groups. <<
There is no doubt that our Constitutional rights have been eroded from the Founder’s intent. And the First Amendment has been lawyered to death and is almost extinct.
I however do not applaud it, I think it is a shame how far this country is sunk, and sometimes I think the Constitution is meaningless.
Nothing to celebrate or be smug about here.
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.