• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

More liberties are taken away

Dude111 said:
Please if you have not read this article already its worth reading it as most of our rights and liberties are taken away from us on a daily basis!!!

IN STEALTH!!


Click here for more info
Click to expand...

Pretty sure only the residents of San Juan Capistrano are the ones with any valid claim to anything on this and even then it's a stretch if this is a law that has been on the book for some time.

Also, please elaborate on "most of our rights and liberties are being taken away". What right or liberty has been taken away from you in the last... let's say... 3 years?
 
Last edited:
It's one of those messy local questions. On the one hand, you want to say people should be able to do what they like in their home; on the other, a private home hosting 5o people regularly for meetings could be a headache for neighbors. Whichever side you are on, you can ask whether a 'conditional use permit' improves things. I noted this guy has more open space near his house; the rule here needs to also address the people in cramped neighborhoods. Same with number of cars. Same question comes up with when hosting even a party becomes excessive for a neighborhood - how many people before it's a problem?

This law doesn't cover that - just 'regular gatherings'.

The argument this is a violation of first amendment rights is weak; they can't hold their meeting blocking traffic or in city hall, either. It's about legitimate issues.
 
Yawn. This is no different than any zoning issue or ordinance that regulates land use locally. If you oppose any and all such things ideological, then fine. But this isn't a First Amendment issue.
 
Let's say the Fromms have 10,000 guests joining them for Bible studies every Sunday morning, filling up the curbs with parked cars for many, many blocks all around. Can we all agree that the city has a valid reason for requiring a permit for such gatherings? And if the Fromms had one friend joining them for Bible study every Sunday, and the friend parked her car in their driveway, can we all agree that no one would care and it would be absurd for the city to require a permit?

Okay, so now that we've established that cities have the right to establish and enforce zoning laws and at some point on the continuum between "one friend" and "10,000 friends" the city has a right (and a duty) to stop the Fromms, this story is a big nothing. You might not agree that "50 friends" is too many, but you're just quibbling with the specifics, not the principle.
 
also the frequency has to be taken into account..... EVERY week. this isn't a wedding or other "one-time" thing.....
 
I see no issue with this. it doesn't matter what they do, it's the frequency and the numbers that come to the meetings.

A residential area simply isn't set up for the number of guests that they were hosting. It is no different if they were AA, Wiccan, or a weekly lan party.

I they host that number on a regular basis, let them rent space in an appropriate location, such as a storefront.

The story doesn't say it but I would suspect someone complained to the city after they got tired of the weekly congestion on the street.

I would complain too if it was happening on my street.

Also, why does it always have to be at their house? Couldn't it be rotated among the participants so that one location doesn't get hammered every week?
 
Last edited:
I've hosted and participated in a lot of gatherings of this nature. Bible studies/home groups are typically under 20ish people. When our study started regularly attracting 20+ we found a rental space elsewhere to accommodate parking and seating for everyone.

50 is getting into church size. For logistical reasons within the group (too many people for everyone to have a voice in the conversation, etc) they should be splitting it or making a switch to a public space. The neighborhood congestion is just one more reason for them to change their weekly meeting arrangements.

Even when we only had 4-5 people meeting at our house we had to train everyone not to park in the street in front of our next-door neighbor's house. They were super pissy about it, considered the street their private property, and they would call the cops rather than just ask us to move our cars (which we always did willingly.) Even when you're within your rights it's better not to piss off your neighbors, and it doesn't send a good message about your faith if you disregard their needs and wishes.
 
Craig234 said:
It's one of those messy local questions. On the one hand, you want to say people should be able to do what they like in their home; on the other, a private home hosting 5o people regularly for meetings could be a headache for neighbors. Whichever side you are on, you can ask whether a 'conditional use permit' improves things. I noted this guy has more open space near his house; the rule here needs to also address the people in cramped neighborhoods. Same with number of cars. Same question comes up with when hosting even a party becomes excessive for a neighborhood - how many people before it's a problem?

This law doesn't cover that - just 'regular gatherings'.

The argument this is a violation of first amendment rights is weak; they can't hold their meeting blocking traffic or in city hall, either. It's about legitimate issues.
Click to expand...

Get rid of old law insert new law (probably something similar already on the books):


In residential neighborhoods you may not park on the property (including the curb directly in front of the property) without the property owners or renters consent.

Done.

Otherwise I, and you, should be able to have as many people over to our property as we so desire. Plenty of other ordinances, like noise ordinances, to handle other issues. Under that bullshit law it is illegal to have a poker night with 4 buddies that arrive in a single vehicle. That is pure 100% grade A bullshit.


Edit: The argument against first amendment violations is "week" when the law states you can't have a regular gathering of more than 3 freaking people?!?!?! Please tell me you are kidding.
 
Last edited:
shira said:
Let's say the Fromms have 10,000 guests joining them for Bible studies every Sunday morning, filling up the curbs with parked cars for many, many blocks all around. Can we all agree that the city has a valid reason for requiring a permit for such gatherings? And if the Fromms had one friend joining them for Bible study every Sunday, and the friend parked her car in their driveway, can we all agree that no one would care and it would be absurd for the city to require a permit?

Okay, so now that we've established that cities have the right to establish and enforce zoning laws and at some point on the continuum between "one friend" and "10,000 friends" the city has a right (and a duty) to stop the Fromms, this story is a big nothing. You might not agree that "50 friends" is too many, but you're just quibbling with the specifics, not the principle.
Click to expand...

Don't fire codes take care of that?

As far as the rest, it is understandable to pass a law that says your gathering can not clog up the neighborhood but needing a permit to have a weekly poker night or gathering of a few friends to discuss politics or anything is wrong in so many ways.
 
dawp said:
I see no issue with this. it doesn't matter what they do, it's the frequency and the numbers that come to the meetings.

A residential area simply isn't set up for the number of guests that they were hosting. It is no different if they were AA, Wiccan, or a weekly lan party.

I they host that number on a regular basis, let them rent space in an appropriate location, such as a storefront.

The story doesn't say it but I would suspect someone complained to the city after they got tired of the weekly congestion on the street.

I would complain too if it was happening on my street.

Also, why does it always have to be at their house? Couldn't it be rotated among the participants so that one location doesn't get hammered every week?
Click to expand...

Under the law they could have received the same fine if they had 4 friends over who arrived in a single vehicle. As I have pointed out, there are much easier ways to handle this than a law that states more than 3 people at a regular gathering on your private property requires a permit.
 
If the city fined them for parking, noise, or fire code violations than the church group wouldn't have a leg to stand on,

but according to the article

San Juan Capistrano authorities claim home Bible study is not allowed because it is a “church,” and churches require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in residential areas.
Click to expand...
looks like it possibly could be grounds for a first amendment issue especially since the municipality set the standard at more than 3 people, most family gatherings are much greater than that number.
 
1prophet said:
If the city fined them for parking, noise, or fire code violations than the church group wouldn't have a leg to stand on,

but according to the article

looks like it possibly could be grounds for a first amendment issue especially since the municipality set the standard at more than 3 people, most family gatherings are much greater than that number.
Click to expand...

How many family gatherings with 50 guest happen on a weekly basis? not many.
 
Just rotate the the meeting to different people's houses and will not be a regular meeting. Problem solved.

Sometimes Mormons have a scripture study class called seminary at 6:00 every morning. It is a class for high school aged students. Sometimes it is taught in buildings accross the street from schools in Utah during students study hall, and sometimes at meeting houses, and sometimes in peoples homes.

How is this different from getting together to play poker or bridge?
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Yawn. This is no different than any zoning issue or ordinance that regulates land use locally. If you oppose any and all such things ideological, then fine. But this isn't a First Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it a First Amendment issue?

I look for the American Civil Liberties union to jump on this issue.

I wonder if the people who passed those restrictions slept through high school government class? The government can pass no laws restricting religion - within reason that is.


shira said:
Let's say the Fromms have 10,000 guests joining them for Bible studies
Click to expand...

In case you can not count, there is a big difference between 3 people, and 10,000 people.
 
Last edited:
I checked into the legalities of this particular issue as I realized my initial answer was off the cuff. Zoning laws have generally withstood Constitutional challenge since the 1920's. However, there is a piece of Federal legislation meant to enforce First Amendment rights called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act passed in the year 2000. It does appear to restrict the ability of local governments to burden religious activities through land use regulation. In a nutsell, the government has to show a compelling state interest and that the action was the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. That is a strict scrutiny test, a high burden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act

This statute has not yet been tested in court but it could well restrict the ability of local government to use zoning in a way that affects religious activites. I think if the residents here are agrieved, they could take this matter to court. They certainly have an argument here.
 
woolfe9999 said:
I think if the residents here are agrieved, they could take this matter to court. They certainly have an argument here.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

We are dealing with 2 issues here, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to worship.

Has the city prohibited people from throwing a super bowl party where no more then 3 people may attend? What about birthday parties, weddings, bridal showers,,,,, are all of those gatherings prohibited as well?

If the city has restricted the ordinance to "just" religion, the city is going to lose a court battle.
 
Texashiker said:
We are dealing with 2 issues here, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to worship.

Has the city prohibited people from throwing a super bowl party where no more then 3 people may attend? What about birthday parties, weddings, bridal showers,,,,, are all of those gatherings prohibited as well?

If the city has restricted the ordinance to "just" religion, the city is going to lose a court battle.
Click to expand...

Actually, the OP's article appears to be quoting the ordinance as prohitting any "regular gathering of more than three people..." without a permit. So it wouldn't apply to a Super Bowl party, but would apply to say, a book club.

However, after reading up on the subject, it isn't 100% certain that the city would win the Court challenge even though the ordinance is not specific to religion. The piece of federal legislation I linked has not yet been interpretted by the Courts as it relates to land use, and has not yet been reviewed for its own Constitutionality.

One final note, the OP's title "more liberties taken away" is extremely inaccurate because this sort of ordinance would never have been found unconstitional in the past. However, today it might well be. It's the reverse of what the title suggests.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
We are dealing with 2 issues here, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to worship.

Has the city prohibited people from throwing a super bowl party where no more then 3 people may attend? What about birthday parties, weddings, bridal showers,,,,, are all of those gatherings prohibited as well?

If the city has restricted the ordinance to "just" religion, the city is going to lose a court battle.
Click to expand...

You do realize the difference between a one off occurrece (Super Bowl, unless they do it weekly now) and a regular gathering every week which this appears to be about right?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
You do realize the difference between a one off occurrece (Super Bowl, unless they do it weekly now) and a regular gathering every week which this appears to be about right?
Click to expand...

Super bowl would be a regular meeting - but only once a year.

I guess it depends on what you call regular? How often is regular? Once a month, every 2 months, once a week?

My wife and I have 12 grandkids, 8 live close by. We have a birthday party about every 1 - 2 months at my house, would that be considered regular? The kids like to use my yard because we have a field about 1/2 acre in size for the kids to play in.

We have 2 birthdays in January, 2 in march, 2 in april, 2 in may, 1 in july, 1 in october, 1 in november,,, and those are the only ones I can think of right now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top