County Officials Attempt to Stop Home Bible Study

[her209]

Originally posted by: mugs
It's not uncommon for board game groups to have 15 or more people. Tell me why I can't have 15 people come to my house and play board games once a week.

If your weekly gathering, whatever it may be, is causing problems (parking, traffic, property damage) in my neighborhood, then I have a right to complain.

 

[her209]

San Diego County Use Regulation (PDF)

2100 INTENT.
The provisions of Section 2100 through Section 2109, inclusive, shall be known as the RS Single Family Residential Use Regulations, the RD Duplex/ Two Family Residential Use Regulations, the RM Multi-Family Residential Use Regulations, or the RV Variable Family Residential Use Regulations, depending on the building type specified In the title. These Use Regulations are Intended to create and enhance areas where family residential uses are the principal and dominant use and where certain civic uses are conditionally permitted when they serve the needs of residents. Typically, these Use Regulations would be applied to rural, suburban, and urban areas where adequate levels of public service are available and where there is a desire to create residential neighborhoods and to maintain such neighborhoods once developed. Application of the appropriate Use Regulations with appropriate development designators can create a traditional, exclusively single-family residential area, a duplex or two- family residential area, a multi-family residential area, or an area with a combination of single family, duplex, two-family or multi-family dwellings.

2105 USES SUBJECT TO MAJOR USE PERMIT.
The following use types are permitted by the RS, RD, RM, and RV Use Regulations, upon issuance of a Major Use Permit.

a. Civic Use Types.
Administrative Services
Child Care Center
Clinic Services
Community Recreation
Cultural Exhibits and Library Services
Group Care
Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assembly
Major Impact Services and Utilities
Parking Services
Postal Services
Religious Assembly

San Diego County General Regulations (PDF)

6100 TITLE AND PURPOSE.
The provisions of Section 6100 through 6149, inclusive, shall be known as the Temporary Use Regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to establish permitted temporary uses and standards and conditions for regulating same.

6102 IDENTIFICATION OF PERMITTED TEMPORARY USES.
The following temporary uses shall be permitted as specified by these regulations:

a. Circus, Camival, or Other Outdoor Entertainment Event. The temporary gathering of people for a circus, camival, or other outdoor entertainment event.
b. Antique or Art Show on Public Property. The temporary use of public property for antique or art shows.
c. Religious Assembly. The temporary gathering of people for religious purposes.
<snipped>

6108 RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
The temporary gathering of people for religious purposes may be permitted in compliance with the following provisions:

a. Location. A religious assembly may be permitted in any zone except zones subject to the RS, RD, RM. and RV Use Regulations.
b. Duration. The period of operation of the religious assembly shall not exceed 8 days.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: her209

If your weekly gathering, whatever it may be, is causing problems (parking, traffic, property damage) in my neighborhood, then I have a right to complain.

Who said it was causing parking problems ?
And if they are only using the home for a meeting once a week then the other stuff you posted does not apply as the primary use for the home is still a home.


They can ask them to get a temporary permit, but that isn't what they asked. They want them to declare it as a church,which it is not, and is a much much more expensive permit.

video interview on fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/...0.html?test=latestnews



They already have a 25000 Sq. Ft. church so it isn't like they are starting to found one in their home.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: her209
San Diego County Use Regulation (PDF)

2100 INTENT.
The provisions of Section 2100 through Section 2109, inclusive, shall be known as the RS Single Family Residential Use Regulations, the RD Duplex/ Two Family Residential Use Regulations, the RM Multi-Family Residential Use Regulations, or the RV Variable Family Residential Use Regulations, depending on the building type specified In the title. These Use Regulations are Intended to create and enhance areas where family residential uses are the principal and dominant use and where certain civic uses are conditionally permitted when they serve the needs of residents. Typically, these Use Regulations would be applied to rural, suburban, and urban areas where adequate levels of public service are available and where there is a desire to create residential neighborhoods and to maintain such neighborhoods once developed. Application of the appropriate Use Regulations with appropriate development designators can create a traditional, exclusively single-family residential area, a duplex or two- family residential area, a multi-family residential area, or an area with a combination of single family, duplex, two-family or multi-family dwellings.

2105 USES SUBJECT TO MAJOR USE PERMIT.
The following use types are permitted by the RS, RD, RM, and RV Use Regulations, upon issuance of a Major Use Permit.

a. Civic Use Types.
Administrative Services
Child Care Center
Clinic Services
Community Recreation
Cultural Exhibits and Library Services
Group Care
Lodge, Fraternal and Civic Assembly
Major Impact Services and Utilities
Parking Services
Postal Services
Religious Assembly

San Diego County General Regulations (PDF)

6100 TITLE AND PURPOSE.
The provisions of Section 6100 through 6149, inclusive, shall be known as the Temporary Use Regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to establish permitted temporary uses and standards and conditions for regulating same.

6102 IDENTIFICATION OF PERMITTED TEMPORARY USES.
The following temporary uses shall be permitted as specified by these regulations:

a. Circus, Camival, or Other Outdoor Entertainment Event. The temporary gathering of people for a circus, camival, or other outdoor entertainment event.
b. Antique or Art Show on Public Property. The temporary use of public property for antique or art shows.
c. Religious Assembly. The temporary gathering of people for religious purposes.
<snipped>

6108 RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY.
The temporary gathering of people for religious purposes may be permitted in compliance with the following provisions:

a. Location. A religious assembly may be permitted in any zone except zones subject to the RS, RD, RM. and RV Use Regulations.
b. Duration. The period of operation of the religious assembly shall not exceed 8 days.

Do you not understand that a city cannot trump the federal constitution?


Do you agree that a city should be counting how many visitors enter your home, the frequency, and what is taking place in your home if you are not violating any noise or criminal laws?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: mugs
It's not uncommon for board game groups to have 15 or more people. Tell me why I can't have 15 people come to my house and play board games once a week.

If your weekly gathering, whatever it may be, is causing problems (parking, traffic, property damage) in my neighborhood, then I have a right to complain.

Way to ignore the rest of my post. Property damage is an entirely separate issue. Having a get-together doesn't cause cars to be damaged. The damage is the responsibility of whoever caused it.

If the cars are parked illegally, the police should ticket them. If the cars are parked legally, what's the problem?

 

[Modelworks]

The lawyers for the case are arguing these points:

The Joneses' weekly Bible study is not a 'religious assembly' as defined by the county's ordinances rendering the requirement of an MUP inapplicable.
The county's order to stop hosting the weekly Bible study is a blatant violation of the Joneses' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
The order also violates their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
The county's action is a substantial burden on the Joneses' ability to practice their religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

From the looks of things, the county is now trying to get out of this quietly, which isn't working out too well now that religious circles have heard about it. I imagine the original county employee that is responsible for the action wants to run and hide.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The lawyers for the case are arguing these points:

The Joneses' weekly Bible study is not a 'religious assembly' as defined by the county's ordinances rendering the requirement of an MUP inapplicable.
The county's order to stop hosting the weekly Bible study is a blatant violation of the Joneses' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
The order also violates their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
The county's action is a substantial burden on the Joneses' ability to practice their religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

From the looks of things, the county is now trying to get out of this quietly, which isn't working out too well now that religious circles have heard about it. I imagine the original county employee that is responsible for the action wants to run and hide.

The first 2 points contradict each other.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: mugs
It's not uncommon for board game groups to have 15 or more people. Tell me why I can't have 15 people come to my house and play board games once a week.

If your weekly gathering, whatever it may be, is causing problems (parking, traffic, property damage) in my neighborhood, then I have a right to complain.

Way to ignore the rest of my post. Property damage is an entirely separate issue. Having a get-together doesn't cause cars to be damaged. The damage is the responsibility of whoever caused it.

If the cars are parked illegally, the police should ticket them. If the cars are parked legally, what's the problem?

It was "ignored" because I had no issue with it. Who should be liable for property damage should one of your visitors cause it but I didn't see who exactly did it? If the cars are parked legally, then there is no problem.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Do you not understand that a city cannot trump the federal constitution?

Do you agree that a city should be counting how many visitors enter your home, the frequency, and what is taking place in your home if you are not violating any noise or criminal laws?

Considering the county didn't give a shit for 5 years until a neighbor complained. The county is obligated to investigate and resolve complaints.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: OCguy
Do you not understand that a city cannot trump the federal constitution?

Do you agree that a city should be counting how many visitors enter your home, the frequency, and what is taking place in your home if you are not violating any noise or criminal laws?

Considering the county didn't give a shit for 5 years until a neighbor complained. The county is obligated to investigate and resolve complaints.

A neighbor didn't complain. Someone visiting a neighbor did.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: OCguy
Do you not understand that a city cannot trump the federal constitution?

Do you agree that a city should be counting how many visitors enter your home, the frequency, and what is taking place in your home if you are not violating any noise or criminal laws?

Considering the county didn't give a shit for 5 years until a neighbor complained. The county is obligated to investigate and resolve complaints.

A neighbor didn't complain. Someone visiting a neighbor did.

Yes, you are correct. The county is still obligated to investigate and resolve the complaint.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The lawyers for the case are arguing these points:

The Joneses' weekly Bible study is not a 'religious assembly' as defined by the county's ordinances rendering the requirement of an MUP inapplicable.
The county's order to stop hosting the weekly Bible study is a blatant violation of the Joneses' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
The order also violates their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
The county's action is a substantial burden on the Joneses' ability to practice their religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

From the looks of things, the county is now trying to get out of this quietly, which isn't working out too well now that religious circles have heard about it. I imagine the original county employee that is responsible for the action wants to run and hide.

The first 2 points contradict each other.

If majority use is as a home then it doesn't qualify as major use. By demanding a full permit they are breaking the first amendment for that home.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: OCguy
Do you not understand that a city cannot trump the federal constitution?

Do you agree that a city should be counting how many visitors enter your home, the frequency, and what is taking place in your home if you are not violating any noise or criminal laws?

Considering the county didn't give a shit for 5 years until a neighbor complained. The county is obligated to investigate and resolve complaints.

A neighbor didn't complain. Someone visiting a neighbor did.

Yes, you are correct. The county is still obligated to investigate and resolve the complaint.

So it would be okay for me to stake out your home and when I see more than x people I can call the cops because I have a problem with it. Even though I don't live there and other than me sitting in the street in my car, would never have known about it or had it effect me in any way except if I just happen to be there when you have more than x amount of people.

I think what we have here is not a case of a person being effected by the number of people at the meeting, they just didn't like what the meeting was about.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
So it would be okay for me to stake out your home and when I see more than x people I can call the cops because I have a problem with it. Even though I don't live there and other than me sitting in the street in my car, would never have known about it or had it effect me in any way except if I just happen to be there when you have more than x amount of people.

I think what we have here is not a case of a person being effected by the number of people at the meeting, they just didn't like what the meeting was about.

That's interesting since the person didn't have a problem with the gathering until someone damaged their personal property.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If they can allieve the parking situation they should be able to continue, if they can't then they should stop. It's not about those people getting together, it's all about the nuisance all their cars are towards the residents of that street.

I agree on the parking but why the religious questions from the officers? Who cares what these friends are doing inside the house as long as it's legal? In the end this is no different than a guy who hosts a party for NFL games every Sunday.

 

[her209]

The county's action is a substantial burden on the Joneses' ability to practice their religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

The way I see it, the county passes all the tests set forth in RLUIPA bolded below:

§ 2000cc. Protection of land use as religious exercise

(a) Substantial burdens
(1) General rule
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution?
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(2) Scope of application
This subsection applies in any case in which?
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
(B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.

(b) Discrimination and exclusion
(1) Equal terms
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
(2) Nondiscrimination
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
(3) Exclusions and limits
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that?
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

§ 2000cc?5. Definitions

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Oh, and when did legality/illegality become the guideline for being a courteous neighbor? That kind of thinking is a big reason society is in the shitter today.

Perhaps the offended individual could have had the courtesy to approach the Pastor and request his group consider car pooling for the sake of the neighbors. Maybe, just maybe, the Pastor had no idea that his visitors were creating strife in the neighborhood. That's "the problem with society today," assholes all think you should always see things the same way as they do without having the forethought to voice their view first.

If there is no ordinance stating that you can't park on the street, there is no case. Regardless of whether people find it "inconvenient" or not. What happens behind those closed doors has no further bearing on the case regardless of how cleverly local regulations are worded to skirt The Constitution.

What hasn't been mentioned is that for the previous 4 years the neighbor across the street was having swingers parties but the "fundies" put an end to that with vehement protests. lol

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If they can allieve the parking situation they should be able to continue, if they can't then they should stop. It's not about those people getting together, it's all about the nuisance all their cars are towards the residents of that street.

I agree on the parking but why the religious questions from the officers? Who cares what these friends are doing inside the house as long as it's legal? In the end this is no different than a guy who hosts a party for NFL games every Sunday.

I highly suspect the questions were not posited in quite the way that the Complainant has posited them. Besides, it seems the Bylaw has stipulations concerning Religious usage of Property. So if the property is being used for Religious gatherings, then that's grounds requiring a Permit. One could argue that 1 meeting a week is insufficient to require such a Permit, but not that the questions were "inappropriate".

The issue here is not to prevent people from Practising their Religion, but to determine if their Practising at that location is appropriate given various circumstances. If anyone thinks they can just plop a Church, Temple, Mosque, etc down anywhere they want, they are sadly mistaken. Like any Building Permit, a number of things must be considered before granting permission to locate such thing.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: OCguy
Do you not understand that a city cannot trump the federal constitution?

Do you agree that a city should be counting how many visitors enter your home, the frequency, and what is taking place in your home if you are not violating any noise or criminal laws?

Considering the county didn't give a shit for 5 years until a neighbor complained. The county is obligated to investigate and resolve complaints.

A neighbor didn't complain. Someone visiting a neighbor did.

Yes, you are correct. The county is still obligated to investigate and resolve the complaint.

So it would be okay for me to stake out your home and when I see more than x people I can call the cops because I have a problem with it. Even though I don't live there and other than me sitting in the street in my car, would never have known about it or had it effect me in any way except if I just happen to be there when you have more than x amount of people.

I think what we have here is not a case of a person being effected by the number of people at the meeting, they just didn't like what the meeting was about.

idiot. the cops weren't called out until a neighbors vehicle was damaged then the county code enforcer came out. the neighbors did not make a complaint about the bible study or the number of cars.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: OCguy
I am an agnostic leaning towards athiest, so lets get that out of the way. I despise religion being any part of public policy.

Besides the blatant violation of the constitution here, I worry about the other implications the article brings up.

What if I have 10-15 people over on Fridays for poker? Monday night football?

Why is the county counting visitors to your home?

"SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their home, 10News reported."


I am going to guess that this situation is not exclusive to people holding bible study meetings in their homes. Any regularly held meeting that has 10 to 15 people needs a permit. Probably a neighbor complained about the meetings and the authorities were forced to do something about it.

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The lawyers for the case are arguing these points:

The Joneses' weekly Bible study is not a 'religious assembly' as defined by the county's ordinances rendering the requirement of an MUP inapplicable.
The county's order to stop hosting the weekly Bible study is a blatant violation of the Joneses' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
The order also violates their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
The county's action is a substantial burden on the Joneses' ability to practice their religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

From the looks of things, the county is now trying to get out of this quietly, which isn't working out too well now that religious circles have heard about it. I imagine the original county employee that is responsible for the action wants to run and hide.

The first 2 points contradict each other.

They do, however, If the county proves that the Joneses' bible study is religious, congratulations, they have just proven their law violates the first amendment. If they say it isn't, Congratulations, they just proved that the Joneses are guilty of nothing (by any law).

Either way, it looks like the county is going to lose this one.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The lawyers for the case are arguing these points:

The Joneses' weekly Bible study is not a 'religious assembly' as defined by the county's ordinances rendering the requirement of an MUP inapplicable.
The county's order to stop hosting the weekly Bible study is a blatant violation of the Joneses' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
The order also violates their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
The county's action is a substantial burden on the Joneses' ability to practice their religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

From the looks of things, the county is now trying to get out of this quietly, which isn't working out too well now that religious circles have heard about it. I imagine the original county employee that is responsible for the action wants to run and hide.

The first 2 points contradict each other.

They do, however, If the county proves that the Joneses' bible study is religious, congratulations, they have just proven their law violates the first amendment. If they say it isn't, Congratulations, they just proved that the Joneses are guilty of nothing (by any law).

Either way, it looks like the county is going to lose this one.

Negative. Like I posted previously, Churches, Temples, Mosques, etc require Permits. It has nothing to do with regulating Religion or Religious Practises.

 

[AreaCode707]

Wow, that's insane.

My housemates and I host a weekly Bible study that's usually between 10-15 people.

Cars:
We deliberately picked a house with lots of on-site parking and so we usually only have 2-3 cars parked on the street during study. We've have the cops called on us once because a car was in a spot that a neighbor perceived as blocking their driveway (they have a big SUV and have trouble pulling out if we're parked on the opposite side of the street). We immediately agreed to move the car and informed everyone not to park there again. The next day I went and introduced myself to the neighbor, gave him my phone number and said he could call any time of the day or night if our cars were in the way and we'd happily move them.

Noise:
We don't do any music and we're never louder than loud laughter, sometimes outside on the back deck. One of the housemates goes to sleep early so by 9:30 we are at a low level of volume too quiet to wake her up, much less bother then neighbors.

Rotate homes:
everyone in the study pretty much lives in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments except us. We're in a six bedroom house that we rent collectively (7 people).

Do it at church:
We all belong to different, or no, churches. We don't have a church in common that we could meet at. For all formal organization purposes this is a group of friends getting together to hang out. The only thing that differs between this and a group of friends is that we're focused on a particular topic. The only thing that differs between this and a book club is that we pray at the end.

The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Wow, that's insane.

My housemates and I host a weekly Bible study that's usually between 10-15 people.

Cars:
We deliberately picked a house with lots of on-site parking and so we usually only have 2-3 cars parked on the street during study. We've have the cops called on us once because a car was in a spot that a neighbor perceived as blocking their driveway (they have a big SUV and have trouble pulling out if we're parked on the opposite side of the street). We immediately agreed to move the car and informed everyone not to park there again. The next day I went and introduced myself to the neighbor, gave him my phone number and said he could call any time of the day or night if our cars were in the way and we'd happily move them.

Noise:
We don't do any music and we're never louder than loud laughter, sometimes outside on the back deck. One of the housemates goes to sleep early so by 9:30 we are at a low level of volume too quiet to wake her up, much less bother then neighbors.

Rotate homes:
everyone in the study pretty much lives in 1 or 2 bedroom apartments except us. We're in a six bedroom house that we rent collectively (7 people).

Do it at church:
We all belong to different, or no, churches. We don't have a church in common that we could meet at. For all formal organization purposes this is a group of friends getting together to hang out. The only thing that differs between this and a group of friends is that we're focused on a particular topic. The only thing that differs between this and a book club is that we pray at the end.

The idea that there could be a restriction on a private gathering based on the topic of conversation astounds me, and it seems to go against the principle of freedom of religion in this country...

Way to even read the thread/news links provided.

As RightisWrong mentioned earlier, you have to just laugh at the irony of this situation. Fundies have no problem trying to control what happens in the privacy of other peoples homes...but when the tables turn oh the injustice!

 

[kage69]

The fundies are out in full force because they are being exposed to what they say should be mandatory....regulating what people do in the privacy of their own home!! You want to smoke weed in your own home? Or watch pron or have sex toys? What!? You want to marry someone of the same sex and live together and maybe even adopt? NEVER EVER WILL YOU DO THOSE THINGS! What's that? You want to make me get a permit to gather in our own home to worship Jebus? UNCONSTITUTIONAL! ACLU! WE'RE GONNA SUE! Buuuhhhhaaaaa.

Yeah that is pretty funny... :laugh: I'm so used to the holy roller hypocrisy that I didn't even look at it that way, but there it is!

Hopefully this will help many religious folks better understand the "not in my house" mentality.