|
Holy ****ing****.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
Religious or not, I don't care. This seems like a complete invasion of privacy, a violation of freedom to assemble, etc, etc, etc. I don't give two s about bible study, but what is wrong with this country? How is this any different from any other "book club" type meetings that so many people I know attend? What about wine club, or any club for that matter?
| quote: |
Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit
Thursday , May 28, 2009
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.
But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.
For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.
"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple bible study in their own home."
"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."
The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.
If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.
Click here to watch the full FOX News interview.
http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html
|
Surely there's more to the story??? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| San-dog is bankrupt. they just want the taxes if they can get away with it |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Wow. Just wow. :eek: :eek: :eek: :disbelief |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Religious or not, I don't care. This seems like a complete invasion of privacy, a violation of freedom to assemble, etc, etc, etc. I don't give two s about bible study, but what is wrong with this country? How is this any different from any other "book club" type meetings that so many people I know attend? What about wine club, or any club for that matter?
Surely there's more to the story??? |
I bet there is more to the story. While i certainly don't know the facts, i'm sure there were more than 15 people in the 'bible study' group (i simply don't believe that number - it sounds like coaching from lawyers). The fact of the matter is that we have zoning and land use laws in this country. I doubt if san diego county really gives a about a bunch of religious idiots having a study group. I'm willing to bet the 'bible study' was really a large group of people flooding into a residential area. If they had 30-50 people regularly attending a so-called bible study group in a quiet residential neighborhood, in violation of the permitted land use (i.e., residential property being used for this quasi commercial use), and such that there was excess traffic in the area, i have no problem with this at all. If instead of a bible study they were having a keg party no one would give a about the permit situation, least of all fox!
and people need to stop with this founding fathers . Our founding fathers were scumbags just like politicians today: they owned slaves, denied women the right to vote, considered black people 3/5th of a person, and were cool with the massacre of the indigenous people. |
|
|
| Shakka |
I found this on the San Diego NBC website (off Drudge).
| quote: | Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.
Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'" |
Hmm. No mention of how many people were attending, any mention of congestion in the streets or anything like that. fwiw, we regularly have 15-20+ people over for wine club every month and I've never had anyone knock on my door to see my permit. I think you're making assumptions without necessarily knowing the facts. I'm just going on what is out there. If there's more to it, I'd love to know, but I'm not going to make assumptions if I can avoid it. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
It would be just as easy for the news source to simply omit dialogue where the number of people attending is discussed. Also, that transcript appeared in your original source as well. This whole story reeks of "human interest" - and cops are maybe the last thing I would expect to target white Christians in their homes, which only makes it further suspect, if you ask me.
I think it's sort of foolish to assume anything at this point, we really don't have enough information from sources far removed from sympathetic ratings. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Surely there's more to the story??? |
There has to be. I agree with jerZ07002, this story is way too vague. If it's practically a mass type of gathering, then I can see the reasoning behind the city wanting money for it. They're making it sound so harmless and innocent, when I bet they're having rallys for it and putting up signs and having like 20 people come to their house all the time and clogging up neighborhood traffic. |
|
|
| Shakka |
I guess all we can do now is try to read the tea-leaves until there is more clarity. I have a feeling Q5 is more on the mark than the claims that they must be inviting 50 people over on a regular basis and causing some sort of nuisance as there was absolutely no indication of that from anything I've seen yet. California's economy is so deep in the ter they're desperate for incremental revenues. The only thing I can really glean from the article at this point is:
| 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. |
So either they have quite a few devout friends who are regular attendants and they just love cooking huge meals for 50 or so people on a regular basis (which strikes me as less likely).
And this:
| quote: | | 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 warning doesn't cite any inconveniences or code violations, rather it is very specific to say religious assembly as opposed to just any other sort of assembly.
Furthermore, from the local news source, it is not 30-50 people in attendance.
| quote: |
The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles. |
So the question is, what are the county rules?
Whatever the case, there are some valid points brought up in the most updated article (while we wait for additional facts to come in).
| quote: | 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.
Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.
Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"
The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.
Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.
News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.
Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Broyles also said this case has broader implications.
"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.
Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.
If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court. |
The article has video links as well.
http://www.10news.com/print/19562217/detail.html
Apparently he's been hosting the meetings for ~5 years with no complaints until recently. The cars usually park on the pastor's property, but occasionally there is some overflow into the cul-de-sac (I have major overflow every time I throw a get-together at my house. I had 35 people over for the Superbowl but there were no issues, citations or warnings given to me. Arguably, the Superbowl is a religious event.;) If it was an issue of parking overflow, then why did the county ask the questions of whether they said "amen" or "praise the lord?"
From the video, it sounds like the county is backing off. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Bible study lead by a pastor?
How did this leak? How did the county find out? |
It sounds like a guest of a neighbor complained because there was some parking overflow at one of the meetings.
Religious or not, that's just a dick neighbor move as far as I'm concerned. At least have the decency to knock on your neighbor's door and politely ask him to do something about the parking situation before being a douche narc and whining to the authorities. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
It sounds like a guest of a neighbor complained because there was some parking overflow at one of the meetings.
Religious or not, that's just a dick neighbor move as far as I'm concerned. At least have the decency to knock on your neighbor's door and politely ask him to do something about the parking situation before being a douche narc and whining to the authorities. |
I think that's what's happened. From an article from the same site:
| quote: | Every Tuesday night about 15 people drive to Jones’ Bonita home to eat dinner and discuss the Bible. They usually park on Jones' property, he said, but sometimes that parking spills out into the cul-de-sac.
Last month, someone filed a complaint about the number of cars. |
A county official's side of the story:
| quote: | Wallar said it's the officer’s job to determine what kind of event is hosted at Jones’ house to decide what part of county code the event falls under.
"The Bible studies are one that's probably in a very gray area," Waller said.
That gray area may be causing the problem. Wallar said the county only cares about how any event impacts the surrounding neighborhood.
"We want to make sure -- whether they're on a public road or a private road -- that they're parking safely; that we can get fire trucks in; that we can get police vehicles in," Waller said. |
http://www.10news.com/news/19595677/detail.html
Sounds reasonable enough for me.
For what it's worth, there apparently is a requirement in San Diego to obtain a permit for Bible Study classes (link) and the pastor could apply for a "minor deviation" major use permit (see page 8) for about $680 according to DPLU #369 (link), so I think that all this is a bit of an overreaction.
Now, having spent the last 20 minutes browsing through Californian major-use permit application forms, I think I'm going to go kill myself. Cheers. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
The permit is against the law.
First Amendment
freedom of assembly and freedom of religion
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,
No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. ...
a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities
There is no reason to restrict the legal ongoings within the house, as restrictin free assembly due to religious grounds is clearly in violation of the 1st. Should the same restrictions be on a family of that number getting together. Or public safety concerns of maximum occupancy of a building the concerns may be more valid.
However the cars and assembly are not co-dependant so restriction of the activities within the house should not be in question due to the parking. On the contrary there shuold be enforcement of parking rules that would be applicable to that street. The city should be responsible to insure that the laws are being followed equaly irrespective of the assembly being religious or non religious. |
stop trying! the right isn't absolute. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Jerz what is your argument?
|
to be technical, it is a right to freely assemble (or free speech, etc...).
anyway, a right to assembly (or any other right, such as speech) isn't absolute. Here's a short excerpt from a constitutional law outline put out by lexis nexis (i'm getting lazy). It explains, rather plainly, the concept regarding the governments ability to limit the first amendment right to free speech in a public forum. The concept is equally applicable to the right of assembly.
| quote: |
First Amendment jurisprudence has long extended a right to speak on certain government property that qualifies as a public forum. This right to speak in the public forum permits everyone to introduce their views for free. The public forum is particularly important for those who would otherwise lack adequate resources to access the marketplace of ideas. Without such free access, the right to free speech for many would be illusory.
This right of access is not absolute, however. An unlimited right of access to the public forum would jeopardize the First Amendment rights of everyone. If everyone spoke at the same time in the same public forum, the resulting chaos would prevent all speakers from communicating their respective messages. The Constitution permits the government to place limited time, place, and manner restrictions on the right to speak in a public forum to ensure that those who wish to speak can be heard. These restrictions must be content neutral because by arbitrarily dictating where, when, or under what circumstances people can speak, the government could effectively suppress speech. For example, government could advise a speaker whom it disfavored that she could speak only at 4 a.m. in a deserted area. On the other hand, it could allow a preferred speaker access to the town square at noon. Such abuses of time, place, and manner restrictions could result in the suppression of speech just as effectively as more direct methods of censorship. |
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool.../index_Full.asp |
|
|
|
|
