No Meetings in Your Home Without a Permit?

[Roadie]

DISCLAIMER, this is NOT a religious thread, the story just happens to involve a Bible Study as an example of our eroding Liberty. Please try to keep it neutral so the tread is not locked, thank you!

Read more: The Capistrano Dispatch - Capistrano Couple in Legal Battle for Hosting Bible Study in Home
​

“The Fromms’ citations say they violated section 9-3.301 of the Capistrano Municipal Code, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit. The footnote on the section says it “Includes churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations.”

So you can't have your church, your Boy Scout/Girl Scout, a charity fundraiser, etc, meeting, in YOUR OWN HOME, in San Juan Capistrano, without a permit?

Disgusting.

 

[bingley]

So you can't have your church, your Boy Scout/Girl Scout, a charity fundraiser, etc, meeting, in YOUR OWN HOME, in San Juan Capistrano, without a permit?

Disgusting.

You can't run a chemical factory in your own home either. Just because you own a house, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there. Now, the wisdom of the specifics of the relevant zoning ordinances is a separate issue. It seems like that's the business of those who live there, not ours.

It seems to me that these people attracted attention because they were pulling in fifty people weekly. That's potentially fifty cars, taking up fifty parking spots on a residential street. That might have deprived the neighbors of their parking spots. No wonder the neighbors blew the whistle on them. Freedom is supposed to stop in front of the nose of another. Since we are such a car culture, in this case one house's exercise of freedom might have infringed upon the freedom of other houses on the same block.

Da Bing

 

[Roadie]

So you aren't big on Personal Property rights eh? Suppose they made an Ordinance that said you can't carry in your home?
After all,

"Just because you own a house, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there."

 

[Roadie]

BTW:

But in the neighborhood of large homes on even larger lots—the Fromms live in a 4,700-square-foot home on a parcel that also has a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn—Stephanie Fromm said parking was never a problem. Neither was noise, she said.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

So you aren't big on Personal Property rights eh? Suppose they made an Ordinance that said you can't carry in your home?
After all,

"Just because you own a house, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there."

Well played sir. I fail to see how having a gathering or fund raiser at your house shouldnt be allowed. Couldnt having a yard sale be considered a "gathering?"

 

[Roadie]

Well played sir. I fail to see how having a gathering or fund raiser at your house shouldnt be allowed. Couldnt having a yard sale be considered a "gathering?"

Good question. Under the conditions cited, you might be OK, as long as it wasnt a fund-raiser, then it would fall under the "community service organizations" clause..

 

[O2guy]

Seems like the .gov just keeps moving in...We will need a spare bedroom for them before long

 

[Birds Away]

"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.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"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.

Winner

 

[nate1865]

Rome tried that with the early church too.

In fact, China has similar laws on the books today that affect the same result.

 

[bingley]

So you aren't big on Personal Property rights eh? Suppose they made an Ordinance that said you can't carry in your home?
After all,

"Just because you own a house, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there."

BTW:

Non sequitur. Are you saying you can do whatever you want in your house? How about murdering your wife? How about kidnapping a girl scout and molesting her in your house? Is that a "Personal Property" right? (Why are you capitalizing the phrase?)

Liberty doesn't mean we have the right to act like a bunch of primitive monkeys, doing whatever we want without regard for the liberty and rights of another. That's just a form of violence.

As for the case at hand, my point in my original post is that the bible study hosts might have infringed upon the rights of her neighbors. The news story just reports the hosts' opinion that there couldn't have possibly been such a problem. It fails to check with her neighbors. Perhaps this opinion does not reflect reality. The hosts say that all the neighbors are supportive except for one. (I assume this means they think they know who called the cops.) Again, the journalist fails to do fact checking. Maybe more people hate those in question.

Don't take the leap of faith and pick sides before the dust has settled. This is a neighborhood dispute between two houses. It's just not a good idea to meddle. We don't live there, we don't really know what's going on. So let's not jump to conclusions. However, thinking that house ownership gives you an absolute right is erroneous. It might have been the case for the lord of the land in the Middle Ages, but we have a modern concept of freedom that respects the rights of others.

Da Bing

 

[J_Wales]

One cannot help but wonder how far citizens will be pushed before they recall the words of our Founding Fathers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

[MrSmitty]

Non sequitur. Are you saying you can do whatever you want in your house? How about murdering your wife? How about kidnapping a girl scout and molesting her in your house? Is that a "Personal Property" right? (Why are you capitalizing the phrase?)

Liberty doesn't mean we have the right to act like a bunch of primitive monkeys, doing whatever we want without regard for the liberty and rights of another. That's just a form of violence.

As for the case at hand, my point in my original post is that the bible study hosts might have infringed upon the rights of her neighbors. The news story just reports the hosts' opinion that there couldn't have possibly been such a problem. It fails to check with her neighbors. Perhaps this opinion does not reflect reality. The hosts say that all the neighbors are supportive except for one. (I assume this means they think they know who called the cops.) Again, the journalist fails to do fact checking. Maybe more people hate those in question.

Don't take the leap of faith and pick sides before the dust has settled. This is a neighborhood dispute between two houses. It's just not a good idea to meddle. We don't live there, we don't really know what's going on. So let's not jump to conclusions. However, thinking that house ownership gives you an absolute right is erroneous. It might have been the case for the lord of the land in the Middle Ages, but we have a modern concept of freedom that respects the rights of others.

Da Bing

Duh.. you can do what you want in your home ..legally, but then again it IS the People Republik of Khalifate...uh... California, gotta put those pesky Christians in their place...under the heels of the progressives, and Islamo terrorists

 

[jon159753]

California..... You can grow drugs in your house.....But do not think about having a religious meeting. That would just be wrong.

And you Freedom of Assembly folks. Their right to assemble has not been denied. It just says they can not do it in a residential area. Who knows. maybe this law was made after some cult started.

 

[nawainwright]

I live in downtown dover, nh. I am not allowed to have any regular church meetings in my house, but its mostly because of parking issues....I'm sure if I lived near the metered section of town, they'd be fine with it

 

[rambone]

As for the case at hand, my point in my original post is that the bible study hosts might have infringed upon the rights of her neighbors. The news story just reports the hosts' opinion that there couldn't have possibly been such a problem.

The article says that the family lives in a gigantic house with a huge yard, a barn, a corral, a pool, etc. Sounds like guests could have easily been parking in that yard. Maybe the nosy little neighbor didn't approve of that either.

 

[2A_Tom]

California..... You can grow drugs in your house.....But do not think about having a religious meeting. That would just be wrong.

And you Freedom of Assembly folks. Their right to assemble has not been denied. It just says they can not do it in a residential area. Who knows. maybe this law was made after some cult started.

So we pich and choose witch religions are ok?

Kind of like when the pope said that the Hugonauts in france were a cult and had them slaughtered.

Or Janet Reno and Waco.

I am a Christian. I will keep that for IM's.

This is not a religious issue this is pure property rights. If it ain't ilegal and doesn't infringe on someone elses property rights then the govt.should stay out of it.

Bing that is very liberal of you to throw out an argument about doing totaly ilegal things.

 

[Roadie]

Non sequitur. Are you saying you can do whatever you want in your house? How about murdering your wife? How about kidnapping a girl scout and molesting her in your house? Is that a "Personal Property" right? (Why are you capitalizing the phrase?)

Liberty doesn't mean we have the right to act like a bunch of primitive monkeys, doing whatever we want without regard for the liberty and rights of another. That's just a form of violence.

As for the case at hand, my point in my original post is that the bible study hosts might have infringed upon the rights of her neighbors. The news story just reports the hosts' opinion that there couldn't have possibly been such a problem. It fails to check with her neighbors. Perhaps this opinion does not reflect reality. The hosts say that all the neighbors are supportive except for one. (I assume this means they think they know who called the cops.) Again, the journalist fails to do fact checking. Maybe more people hate those in question.

Don't take the leap of faith and pick sides before the dust has settled. This is a neighborhood dispute between two houses. It's just not a good idea to meddle. We don't live there, we don't really know what's going on. So let's not jump to conclusions. However, thinking that house ownership gives you an absolute right is erroneous. It might have been the case for the lord of the land in the Middle Ages, but we have a modern concept of freedom that respects the rights of others.

Da Bing

Uhm, you answered my supposed non sequitur, with an actual one.
Murder isnt a guaranteed right enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of Assembly, and Bearing arms, are however..

You are comparing the right to commit crimes in one's own home, with the rights of assembly and bearing arms in one's own home. If that isnt a non sequitur, I dont know what is..

 

[88GT]

Non sequitur. Are you saying you can do whatever you want in your house? How about murdering your wife? How about kidnapping a girl scout and molesting her in your house? Is that a "Personal Property" right? (Why are you capitalizing the phrase?)

Liberty doesn't mean we have the right to act like a bunch of primitive monkeys, doing whatever we want without regard for the liberty and rights of another. That's just a form of violence.

As for the case at hand, my point in my original post is that the bible study hosts might have infringed upon the rights of her neighbors. The news story just reports the hosts' opinion that there couldn't have possibly been such a problem. It fails to check with her neighbors. Perhaps this opinion does not reflect reality. The hosts say that all the neighbors are supportive except for one. (I assume this means they think they know who called the cops.) Again, the journalist fails to do fact checking. Maybe more people hate those in question.

Don't take the leap of faith and pick sides before the dust has settled. This is a neighborhood dispute between two houses. It's just not a good idea to meddle. We don't live there, we don't really know what's going on. So let's not jump to conclusions. However, thinking that house ownership gives you an absolute right is erroneous. It might have been the case for the lord of the land in the Middle Ages, but we have a modern concept of freedom that respects the rights of others.

Da Bing

Oh, dear, is it hypocritical or ironic that you fault a man for a non sequitur and then commit one yourself?

For the sake of civil and LOGICAL argument, let's place our operational premises on the table right now: there is a difference between exercising your rights via actions that infringe on the rights of other and with those that do not. It is an unspoken presumption that actions of the former kind are categorically unacceptable regardless of the claim to "freedom" or exercise of liberty used to justify them. Having said that, in the absence of any action that directly impinges on the rights of others against their will, then absolutely any individual should have free rein to do whatever the hell he pleases.

Ergo, in this particular scenario, the state's imposition of a ban on the assembly of a group for religious reasons is wrong no matter what. The state has no authority to prevent the free exercise of one's religion. *IF* in the course of the exercise of this right, a neighbor of the Fromms feels that his/her rights have been violated, then and only then, should the state be involved, and only to the level that restores the neighbor's full compliment of liberties.

Our rights are absolute. Our exercise of them may not be in certain circumstances. It's a small but significant difference.

 

[Roadie]

Non sequitur. Are you saying you can do whatever you want in your house? How about murdering your wife? How about kidnapping a girl scout and molesting her in your house? Is that a "Personal Property" right? (Why are you capitalizing the phrase?)

Liberty doesn't mean we have the right to act like a bunch of primitive monkeys, doing whatever we want without regard for the liberty and rights of another. That's just a form of violence.

As for the case at hand, my point in my original post is that the bible study hosts might have infringed upon the rights of her neighbors. The news story just reports the hosts' opinion that there couldn't have possibly been such a problem. It fails to check with her neighbors. Perhaps this opinion does not reflect reality. The hosts say that all the neighbors are supportive except for one. (I assume this means they think they know who called the cops.) Again, the journalist fails to do fact checking. Maybe more people hate those in question.

Don't take the leap of faith and pick sides before the dust has settled. This is a neighborhood dispute between two houses. It's just not a good idea to meddle. We don't live there, we don't really know what's going on. So let's not jump to conclusions. However, thinking that house ownership gives you an absolute right is erroneous. It might have been the case for the lord of the land in the Middle Ages, but we have a modern concept of freedom that respects the rights of others.

Da Bing

Oh, and how are we "meddling"? We are discussing/debating personal liberties just like we discuss 2nd Amend liberties. Would you use the word "meddle" in a discussion of Illinois' repressive gun laws?