Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit – FOXNews.com — What? Does this mean I cannot have a few guys over to watch a football game either? It’s kind of religious.
Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.
“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.
“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.
A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.
The people commenting have raised several important issues.
1. The city has the right to regulate vehicular traffic. IF the vehicles of the people coming to this ‘Bible study’ were parked in accordance with the parking bylaws, there is nothing to complain about. If they violated parking/traffic bylaws, they ought to be ticketed – no less and no more!
2. Freedom of religion is NOT the primary issue here, but it might be a secondary ‘contributing factor’. Like #5 stated, there are many ‘established’ churches which might oppose ‘alternate’ interpretations of doctrine… IF these ARE behind the complaints, then the City is WRONG to attempt to enforce the ‘official religious hegemony’ and I hope someone sues their behinds right to the pearly gates!
3. Freedom of assembly is a VERY important freedom – one which we (in USA and Canada and ‘Western nations’ overall) MUST NOT give up! I was raised behind ‘the iron curtain’: if you wanted to ‘assemble’ more than 3 people at once, you had to get an ‘official permit’ and allow the state to ‘monitor’ the activity…. Of course, this was often not enforced when it came to most ‘family events’, but – if you were a family member of a political dissident (as I was), then visiting your grandparents and cousins COULD (legally) be crashed by the secret police…to make sure no ‘subversive activity’ took place.
We REALLY do NOT want to go THERE – do we???
#29 – No, no, NO! Going to the city to vent your problems is exactly the kind of thinking that got our society into the shitter to begin with.
How about politely knocking on your neighbor’s door and asking them if they wouldn’t mind having their guests park somewhere else?
Are we that afraid to talk to our neighbors now? We have to go crying to the city?
So like, would they still need a permit if everyone parked elsewhere?
And since when do the people living on a street have dibs on parking there? Aren’t streets the magical ‘public property’ big-gov’t types like throwing in our faces? Well, if they’re public…
Jeeze… it is very clear that this article and headline are very misleading. And of course they left out all the important information that would have lead to it making sense.
The bible study has nothing to do with it. They could have been knitting, devil worshiping, playing cards, or having an orgy. It has to with holding frequent large meetings, in a tight area, to a degree that it has very real impact on their neighbors.
If his group got so popular, then there are plenty of civic and church meeting rooms that have the facilities to handle the volume of visitors.
Sad that so many people can’t think critically and get all bent out of shape about “They are attacking Christians!!!”, just like the evil bastards that write these “stories” know they will.
What part of
“no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
do you not understand?
This is not about traffic either. I live blocks away from an elementary school, and when there are evening events, cars are parked clogging the streets in all directions. Have any of you ever lived near a university? If there is space on the street to park cars, guess what? That is why it is there!!!
I agree this is not likely a parking issue. Something stinks, but there isn’t enough info to know what. Maybe it’s retaliation for supporting Prop 8. The county probably sees this as a “win win” if they take care of a complaint and generate some revenue. The county also remains blameless for just doing their job. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to get the rest of the story.
#30 for the win
Didn’t local government shut down a sex club in a private home in Texas or Florida as reported here at DU for the same reason?
Zoning laws/Business Permits vs Freedom/Anarchy. Isn’t being reasonable a bitch?
I read this story about a week or two ago. The ACLU is silent on the matter. Not surprising as they aren’t about defending the Bill of Rights… Nonetheless, the usual sequence is unfolding. CA strong anti-gun laws, now a crackdown on the 1st Amend.
#40 The ACLU is silent because it’s a fraudulent claim and nothing to do with Bible study.
Be careful what you wish for. Home gay sex bible study workshops could be a trend enabled by such a loophole.
# 41 Dallas said, “#40 The ACLU is silent because it’s a fraudulent claim and nothing to do with Bible study. ”
Bzzt. Nope, they are going to court. It happened. The American Communist Liberal Union is of course silent..
1. 15 people does not mean 15 cars (it could be but there’s likely at least a few couples in the group)
2. You don’t want to come home once a week and find cars parked on your street for a neighbors bible study. How about the weekly football/basketball/baseball/hockey game viewing? How about the weekly ladies book discussion and coffee? How about the thousand other reasons you are allowed to have a group of friends to your house?
It’s not daily and they’re not making money off of the gathering – it’s a private assembly of people in a home once a week. Something everyone is allowed to do for any reason. If they aren’t breaking parking or noise ordinances the city has no case.
Look at it this way – if you had 5 couples to your house for dinner every Friday for a get together of friends/relatives could the city knock on your door and ask what you were serving, how much was eaten and how you cooked it and then declare you a restaurant?
There has been no comment yet explaining how this violates the First Amendment.
It has been adequately settled in law that First Amendment Rights are not absolute. To that we go back to the “… yelling fire in a crowded theater” or sacrificing babies on an alter in the name of some ‘god’. Unless of course you are Alphafa1 and the universe revolves around you.
Land use is indeed a local concern. Local citizens elect representatives to devise acceptable land uses. This specific area is (I am assuming here) zoned residential. Therefore the City has every right to determine if any activity other than normal residential use is occurring. Abnormal use could (even if it doesn’t need to be proven) affect the traffic flows, noise, sewer, water, power, police and fire protection, etc., or even just the neighbor’s enjoyment of their own property.
It is a right of every citizen to NOT have a hog farm, foundry, or a church move in next door when the local zoning laws prohibit it. That doesn’t prohibit any of the examples from locating in suitable location where the services are adequate to support them. All it means is that the right of any business or group to exist is not above the rights of others.
# 44 Mr. Fusion said, “There has been no comment yet explaining how this violates the First Amendment. ”
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
#43, Amber,
… if you had 5 couples to your house for dinner every Friday …
Actually yes, it does. Depending upon the definition of residence and local laws in your community, a regular gathering could be determined a nuisance. It is generally accepted that large gatherings such as a birthday, Thanksgiving gathering, etc. are unique and relatively rare.
Consistent gatherings are not. Many, if not most communities, would require adequate services (toilets per person, parking, safe food handling, fire escape routes, liquor, policing, etc.) can accommodate those attending. The City is mandated to see that these services are provided for the safety of those attending AS WELL AS the neighbor’s safety.
Claiming that your regular gathering is some right holds only as far as it may be accommodated.
“Claiming that your regular gathering is some right holds only as far as it may be accommodated.”
lol.
I would have thought this site’s editors would be applauding.
Well done Fusion. Sad people can’t deal with “rights in conflict” and the default is to support the issue of the moment. Next week, Patrick will be upset over the same case reported as Home Owner Sues City to Enforce His Right to Park his Car in Front of His House. etc.
The issue here is a SPECIFIC ZONING LAW. Babbling about free speech is irrelevant until you address this assembly right from a zoning issue. – – – Yea, I’ll hold my breath for that to happen.
But I like this quote: ““We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.
You know what “not really” means?
Yes, convenience trumps all.
#49, Bobbo,
True. They might have also pointed out that one of the parishioners has a bunion so they are discriminating against the disabled.
The city/county can certainly tow/cite offenders re parking, they can prohibit the bible study itself… I hope the county gets nailed for a few hundred million in a civil rights case.
There is a bigger problem here that needs to be pointed out. If parking is an issue why not knock on your neighbor’s door and politely express your concern. It seems like a problem that could have been easily solved neighbor to neighbor. So the issue to me is that we have been conditioned to have government solve our problems. This future is not looking bright.
Please don’t be blinded by the County’s PR smoke screen. The parking issue is a minor distraction relative to the 1st Amendment issue and can it be validated? This complaint was based upon a disgruntled non-resident.
”The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”
Be glad you do not live in San Diego County.
This is one of the most repressive, backwards, anti-business County bureaucracies in the USA. They have had the attitude exhibited in this outrageous incident – for decades. They have no respect for property rights or the Constitution (but that’s a growing problem in the USA – another story).
Please e-mail County Supervisor Chair Greg Cox greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov and tell him what you think of Pam Elias’ (Head of Code Enforcement) judgment. And you can e-mail her your regards directly at pam.elias@sdcounty.ca.gov
I hope for the sake of religious freedom, that this goes to court and the County loses its backside and is assessed huge court fees and damages for their Gestapo behavior. Too bad the tax payers will foot the legal bill on this and not the bureaucratic zealots that caused this problem.
#53, Paul,
Why should a homeowner be responsible for enforcing local laws? Isn’t that why we have police and by-law enforcement officials?
#54, Lee,
You didn’t tell us what First Amendment Right is being violated. Are you sure the smoke screen isn’t the crap the bible thumpers are putting out?
If you are going to quote someone, please link to the quote or at least tell us who said it. Simply because what you quoted doesn’t make sense.
The First Amendment does not prohibit government regulation of any religious liberty. To the contrary, all religious activity is still subject to the laws of the land and the police may still raid any church sacrificing a virgin to their gods and subsequently charge the members with criminal offenses. The government may still prohibit any, including religious, activities that violate regular zoning laws. None of that is telling any religious organization what they may or may not believe, only what they may do while still within society.
Standard zoning laws would require adequate parking, sanitary, fire inspections, etc., facilities to accommodate the expected number of people. If religious (or any) repeated gathering does not meet the requirements they may be subject to enforcement.
These laws are in force in every jurisdiction in America that I am aware of, although there are probably a few that are silent.
Somehow I think you are just another drive-by poster with an agenda.
RTFA==its not about parking, its not about freedom of assembly. Its about use permits for specific types of gatherings.
Looks to me like the statute is overbroad and should be struck down for not having a homeowners exception, but thats just me.
OTOH, I hate religion, so this almost evens things up for puting In God we Trust on my money. Hah, hah.
Different news site, slightly more details: http://10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html
(BTW – why *doesn’t* the parser allow www’s in links? Is it an antispam thing? Seems odd.)
Basically, while it’s not a “zoning” issue (zoning is different, though a cousin of what it is) it appears to be a county regulatory issue probably akin to a zoning law.
The problem *is*, at it’s heart, one of freedom of assembly, with a little bit of freedom of religion sprinkled on top for cosmetic value (or aftertaste, if you will), vs. (I’ll use the term) zoning regulations. Governments *can* limit certain freedoms to ensure the health, safety and enjoyment of the community. But at the same time, a person should be allowed to do what they would with their home, short of turning it into a full time commercial business.
I’m not familiar with California laws, or this county’s laws specifically, so I do not know.
And Paddy – the law suit has *not* been filed. Until such time, the ACLU’s action or nonaction cannot (and rightly should not) be judged.
#56, Bobbo,
Even a homeowner must abide by the laws. If my neighbor had a “Lithuanian Heritage Night” every second Saturday with 50 guests, capping off the evening with fireworks I would be annoyed. His “right to freedom of expression” can not trump my right to reasonable privacy and enjoyment of my home. Even if he is a homeowner.
Of course, if this is a once a year or fewer event then I would be much more amiable to his practice.
NOTE: No Lithuanians were injured in writing this post. They are a nice people with very beautiful women and a rich history. Any problems are the Latvians fault.
Fusion Said “Consistent gatherings are not. Many, if not most communities, would require adequate services (toilets per person, parking, safe food handling, fire escape routes, liquor, policing, etc.) can accommodate those attending. The City is mandated to see that these services are provided for the safety of those attending AS WELL AS the neighbor’s safety”
So if I invite friends over once every few months I can feed them raw chicken and the city doesn’t care. But once a week and they have to check if I can cook properly on my own stove? I don’t think so. There are so many variables here a city could never make a decent case. The only exception I can see is if they can prove that people are paying for the use of your house as the gathering spot which the city could then claim is a business. Beyond that how can they determine how often is acceptable – once a week, twice a month, once a month – it’s completely subjective. As a neighbor my tolerence for others gatherings may be twice a year – you may live in the next house over and say it’s once a month. If you’re breaking no parking or noise laws can I then tell you that you’ve had people over three times this year so no more visitors until 2010? How does the city even prove that the exact same people are there every week? Is a person allowed to have gatherings on a weekly or monthly basis if it’s a different group of people each time…does that change the rules?
The idea that we “tolerate” people gathering on holiday’s because it’s rare is foolish. A survey would show that American’s gather on a regular basis for many things; I even know of people who have a Survivor viewing party every week because they love the show so much. Does the city really need to worry whether the 10 people that gather for that have a place to pee and if the cheese dip is cooked to the right temperature?
Forget for a moment that this was a Bible study and think – think of book clubs, pot luck suppers, watching sports, watching a tv show, playing cards, weekly cookouts – if a city can do that to this group of people they can do it to you. Is that really the nanny state you want to live in? Are a couple extra cars on your street worth complaining about when the city knocks on your door and demands to know what you and your buddies are doing?
# 56 bobbo said, “Its about use permits for specific types of gatherings…”
Which is illegal for religious practice in private homes.
#59–Amber==the activity is not “banned” per se as much as it is being regulated as to time, place, and manner.
All the questions you ask are valid and what “democracy” thru our elected law/ordinance makers is all about. I suppose, we could hypothetically answer all your questions in a way that would make the ordinance acceptable or not acceptable as we were want to do?
Surely, if this zoning restriction is unconstitutional, it will be struck down when it is errantly enforced if the group wants to spend its money that way? Thats usually how most illegal laws are kept on the books===all of us having better things to do with our money. Being zealots to begin with, I don’t know why they don’t post armed guards to shoot people giving them citations. Isn’t THAT the VERY ISSUE gun ownership is trumpeted?
Strange.
Patrick==stating conclusions on the very subject at issue is rather puerile.