OC Couple Threatened With $500-Per-Meeting Fines For Home Bible Study

[syrenn]

If the book club gets noisy they can complain about the noise. If they block the traffic the police can make them move the cars. If they park illegally the cars can be towed. All legal solutions to the problems you site.

Tell me something, how will a permit solve any of the problems you keep talking about?

Because the permit hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors.

Busy streets are disturbing in quiet neighborhoods even if all other factors are solved.

You keep making things up. First you argued that it was traffic and parking issues, which made no sense at all because nobody in a car got a ticket. Then you argued that it was an illegal business, even though no one is making money, now you are saying they need their neighbors permission to get a permit.

Lets get wildly hypothetical here and say that everyone that goes to these Bible studies parks at a near by parking lot and walks to the house. they do this in small groups, and are very quiet and inconspicuous. They do this because they actually care about the neighborhood, and do not want to upset the neighbors. That eliminates the parking and traffic problems entirely, but they, under the unconstitutional law, need a permit. Explain to me why, if they do everything I outlined above, they need a permit, or anyone's permission to do anything.

For a permit that impacts the neighbors ....it goes through an approval process where the neighbors are allowed to have a say in letting the city give or refuse said permit.

If you want to put a second story on your house.... you need to have the approval of the neighbors...right along with the city approval.

For me... the cars it would being in parking up my block would be an issue. I would fight their permit tooth and nail. I really don't care of the cars are parked legally or not..... the congestion on a regular basis would be the issue.

 

[Ravi]

If the book club gets noisy they can complain about the noise. If they block the traffic the police can make them move the cars. If they park illegally the cars can be towed. All legal solutions to the problems you site.

Tell me something, how will a permit solve any of the problems you keep talking about?

Because the permit hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors.

Busy streets are disturbing in quiet neighborhoods even if all other factors are solved.

The neighbors are the one who ratted them out. ANONYMOUSLY. Of course! LOL

That's their choice. I'd be afraid of the witch hunt, seeing the response of the rightwingloons.

 

[Ravi]

If the book club gets noisy they can complain about the noise. If they block the traffic the police can make them move the cars. If they park illegally the cars can be towed. All legal solutions to the problems you site.

Tell me something, how will a permit solve any of the problems you keep talking about?

Because the permit hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors.

Busy streets are disturbing in quiet neighborhoods even if all other factors are solved.

You keep making things up. First you argued that it was traffic and parking issues, which made no sense at all because nobody in a car got a ticket. Then you argued that it was an illegal business, even though no one is making money, now you are saying they need their neighbors permission to get a permit.

Lets get wildly hypothetical here and say that everyone that goes to these Bible studies parks at a near by parking lot and walks to the house. they do this in small groups, and are very quiet and inconspicuous. They do this because they actually care about the neighborhood, and do not want to upset the neighbors. That eliminates the parking and traffic problems entirely, but they, under the unconstitutional law, need a permit. Explain to me why, if they do everything I outlined above, they need a permit, or anyone's permission to do anything.

I never said it was parking. I never said it was an illegal business.

Are you hysterical today, or what?

They need their neighbors permission to do something unusual in the neighborhood. There's not one damn thing wrong with that.

Your fantasy is silly, that isn't what was happening.

 

[Ravi]

Because the permit hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors.

Busy streets are disturbing in quiet neighborhoods even if all other factors are solved.

You keep making things up. First you argued that it was traffic and parking issues, which made no sense at all because nobody in a car got a ticket. Then you argued that it was an illegal business, even though no one is making money, now you are saying they need their neighbors permission to get a permit.

Lets get wildly hypothetical here and say that everyone that goes to these Bible studies parks at a near by parking lot and walks to the house. they do this in small groups, and are very quiet and inconspicuous. They do this because they actually care about the neighborhood, and do not want to upset the neighbors. That eliminates the parking and traffic problems entirely, but they, under the unconstitutional law, need a permit. Explain to me why, if they do everything I outlined above, they need a permit, or anyone's permission to do anything.

For a permit that impacts the neighbors ....it goes through an approval process where the neighbors are allowed to have a say in letting the city give or refuse said permit.

If you want to put a second story on your house.... you need to have the approval of the neighbors...right along with the city approval.

For me... the cars it would being in parking up my block would be an issue. I would fight their permit tooth and nail. I really don't care of the cars are parked legally or not..... the congestion on a regular basis would be the issue.

Damn it, Sy, you'd probably disapprove of my bi-weekly goat sacrifices to Voodoo Gods.

 

[daveman]

OC Couple Threatened With $500-Per-Meeting Fines For Home Bible Study

MISSION VIEJO (CBS) — An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to PJI.

“We’re just gathering and enjoying each other’s company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God’s word.” Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

--

Neighbors have written letters to the city in support of the Fromms, whom they said have not caused any disturbances with the meetings, according to PJI.

“The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking,” City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.
​

Selective enforcement, perhaps?

Sure looks like it.

Motivated by what? one wonders.

Indeed.

 

[daveman]

OC Couple Threatened With $500-Per-Meeting Fines For Home Bible Study

MISSION VIEJO (CBS) — An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to PJI.

“We’re just gathering and enjoying each other’s company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God’s word.” Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

--

Neighbors have written letters to the city in support of the Fromms, whom they said have not caused any disturbances with the meetings, according to PJI.

“The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking,” City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.​

Selective enforcement, perhaps?

Just another way for the city to make money.

True...but the nature of the gathering may factor in as well.

 

[daveman]

the neighbors have rights too.

Its not about whos in their home its about screwing up the lives of their neighbors with 40 cars on a bi weekly basis.

Just because they are Christains doesnt gove them the right to ruin the neighborhood and the housing prices of the other people who live there

I like it how now property values are going down.

 

[daveman]

OC Couple Threatened With $500-Per-Meeting Fines For Home Bible Study

MISSION VIEJO (CBS) — An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to PJI.

“We’re just gathering and enjoying each other’s company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God’s word.” Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

--

Neighbors have written letters to the city in support of the Fromms, whom they said have not caused any disturbances with the meetings, according to PJI.

“The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking,” City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.​

Selective enforcement, perhaps?

It's Orange County people, the most conservative right wing county in California. It's the home of the John Birch Society, people, and Disneyland where a young man with hair too long was once denied admission by the happist place on earth.

What you see, and what you're all whinning about is what the rest of the country will be like if the New Right finishes its take over of the Republican Party and one day controls the agenda of the Congress and the White House as it already does of the Supreme Court.

You'd think such a hotbed of staunch conservatism would have gone for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden by a greater margin than 2.6%.

It's funny when leftists make such absolute pronouncements -- reality seldom seems to agree.

 

[daveman]

I don't care if they are showing bi-weekly porno flicks with Palin and Rice....if the neighbors object, the neighbors object. One homeowner does not get to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

Oh, you mean like the one homeowner who complained?

 

[daveman]

I just love it when people who take a stand that the government should stay out of a woman' womb support the government controlling for whom, when and for what purpose a woman can hold private gatherings in her home.

I am a Democrat because I believe that we should take our noses out of other people's bedrooms. I say we move the noses to their banks and storage sheds and scout troops, and so forth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A Free Exercise Clause or freedom of association violation would depend on the intent of the ordinance and if its requirements manifest an undue hardship. Freedom of religion and expression are not absolute, preemption is allowed provided a compelling governmental interest can be demonstrated.

For example, if a brick and mortar church or mosque were found in violation of safety or building codes and gatherings not allowed, that would not constitute a Free Exercise Clause violation.

I do not give a fuck what they claim the issue is, the government does not have the authority to dictate what people can discuss inside their homes.

Which is not at issue.

At issue is the alleged violation of the Free Exercise Clause. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court held that claims of religious freedom or practice do not exempt one from a given legislative measure:

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.

Employment Division v. Smith | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The full ruling:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

It is not a state law, it is a local ordinance that is facially unconstitutional.

On what grounds?

Measures regulating free speech are Constitutional provided they’re narrowly focused on a compelling governmental interest and sufficiently content-neutral. The ordinance in the OP article clearly meets that requirement.

In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), where advocates for the homeless were sleeping in City parks as a form of free speech to draw attention to their cause, the Court found Constitutional a District of Columbia ordinance prohibiting sleeping in city parks:

Assuming that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment, the regulation forbidding sleeping meets the requirements for a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of expression, whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct. The regulation is neutral with regard to the message presented, and leaves open ample alternative methods of communicating the intended message concerning the plight of the homeless. Moreover, the regulation narrowly focuses on the Government's substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of the Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence. To permit camping would be totally inimical to these purposes. The validity of the regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand, and none of its provisions are unrelated to the ends that it was designed to serve

Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence

Incidental restrictions, therefore, such as the requirement to obtain a permit for a gathering in a residential neighborhood, are in essence no different than a time, place, and manner restriction on free expression.

What’s unfortunate is the homeowners’ failure to conduct their meetings in a responsible manner. A dozen or so guests discussing the bible with perhaps four or five cars parked outside wouldn’t be an issue. When the gatherings grew in size, however, the homeowners should have found a more appropriate venue to accommodate the meetings.

I just love it when people who take a stand that the government should stay out of a woman' womb support the government controlling for whom, when and for what purpose a woman can hold private gatherings in her home.

To date no state or other jurisdiction has been able to demonstrate a compelling interest to preempt privacy rights. Unlike proposed or nullified laws banning abortion, the permit requirement isn’t directed at a specific First Amendment right.

 

[Ravi]

I don't care if they are showing bi-weekly porno flicks with Palin and Rice....if the neighbors object, the neighbors object. One homeowner does not get to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

Oh, you mean like the one homeowner who complained?

Yeah.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said it was parking. I never said it was an illegal business.

Are you hysterical today, or what?

They need their neighbors permission to do something unusual in the neighborhood. There's not one damn thing wrong with that.

Your fantasy is silly, that isn't what was happening.

You should know better than to lie on a message board.

Parking:

Those neighbors pay the same money for that street and would like to use it too.

Then get the street designated as residential parking only. Problem solved.

Most residences are zone for residential parking.

All they need to do is get a permit. But they can't be bothered, instead they are whining. Pretty pathetic.

Business:

Because the permit hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors.

Busy streets are disturbing in quiet neighborhoods even if all other factors are solved.

You keep making things up. First you argued that it was traffic and parking issues, which made no sense at all because nobody in a car got a ticket. Then you argued that it was an illegal business, even though no one is making money, now you are saying they need their neighbors permission to get a permit.

Lets get wildly hypothetical here and say that everyone that goes to these Bible studies parks at a near by parking lot and walks to the house. they do this in small groups, and are very quiet and inconspicuous. They do this because they actually care about the neighborhood, and do not want to upset the neighbors. That eliminates the parking and traffic problems entirely, but they, under the unconstitutional law, need a permit. Explain to me why, if they do everything I outlined above, they need a permit, or anyone's permission to do anything.

I never said it was parking. I never said it was an illegal business.

Are you hysterical today, or what?

They need their neighbors permission to do something unusual in the neighborhood. There's not one damn thing wrong with that.

Your fantasy is silly, that isn't what was happening.

Those neighbors pay the same money for that street and would like to use it too.

Then get the street designated as residential parking only. Problem solved.

Most residences are zone for residential parking.

All they need to do is get a permit. But they can't be bothered, instead they are whining. Pretty pathetic.

Ravi does make a good point, it is the state law. So they "should" be punished if it's a state law.

But what's more important is changing the state law, as this is ridiculous. Shouldn't have to pay for a permit to do something so basic. What's the difference between this and me having to buy a permit for a weekly 20 person hangout to watch tv cuz I have the biggest tv? (that's a hypothetical)

Because you can't favor one neighbor over another.

According to their ordinances:

Additional activities. The Planning Director or his or her agent may approve, conditionally approve, or deny special activity permit requests for the following types of uses. These uses may be permitted for a period of time not to exceed thirty-two (32) days. The thirty-two (32) days allowed under a special use permit application shall not be broken into more than three (3) individual times per calendar year. Applications for such uses shall be on forms provided by the City and shall include all necessary information to review such requests for compliance with all applicable regulations.

(1)

Christmas tree sales;

(2)

Carnivals, festivals, and exhibits by non-profit community groups;

(3)

Sidewalk sales and special retail promotional events;

(4)

Horse shows and exhibitions not located at an existing equestrian center;

(5)

Promotional tents for car dealers; and

(6)

Any special activity proposed for a residential district (shall require adjacent property owner approval).

They signed up for these ordinances when the purchased their house. There is nothing stopping them from following them except their own laziness. Either that, or they are hiding something.

At least I know my positions is fiction, and say so up front.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On what grounds?

Measures regulating free speech are Constitutional provided they’re narrowly focused on a compelling governmental interest and sufficiently content-neutral. The ordinance in the OP article clearly meets that requirement.

In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), where advocates for the homeless were sleeping in City parks as a form of free speech to draw attention to their cause, the Court found Constitutional a District of Columbia ordinance prohibiting sleeping in city parks:

Assuming that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment, the regulation forbidding sleeping meets the requirements for a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of expression, whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct. The regulation is neutral with regard to the message presented, and leaves open ample alternative methods of communicating the intended message concerning the plight of the homeless. Moreover, the regulation narrowly focuses on the Government's substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of the Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their presence. To permit camping would be totally inimical to these purposes. The validity of the regulation need not be judged solely by reference to the demonstration at hand, and none of its provisions are unrelated to the ends that it was designed to serve

Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence

Incidental restrictions, therefore, such as the requirement to obtain a permit for a gathering in a residential neighborhood, are in essence no different than a time, place, and manner restriction on free expression.

What’s unfortunate is the homeowners’ failure to conduct their meetings in a responsible manner. A dozen or so guests discussing the bible with perhaps four or five cars parked outside wouldn’t be an issue. When the gatherings grew in size, however, the homeowners should have found a more appropriate venue to accommodate the meetings.

You know how to use Google, when are you going to learn how to think?

Tell me, what compelling government interest does the government have in requiring a permit only for religious, fraternal, or non profit activities in a home? Let me go further, how can the government require a permit for any regular meeting of 3 or more people in a private home? If a married couple regularly invites their parents over to the house can the government require them to have a permit?

The fucking law is unconstitutional, and only a complete nincompoop would have any trouble seeing that.

 

[Ravi]

I never said it was parking. I never said it was an illegal business.

Are you hysterical today, or what?

They need their neighbors permission to do something unusual in the neighborhood. There's not one damn thing wrong with that.

Your fantasy is silly, that isn't what was happening.

You should know better than to lie on a message board.

Parking:

Most residences are zone for residential parking.

All they need to do is get a permit. But they can't be bothered, instead they are whining. Pretty pathetic.

Business:

Because you can't favor one neighbor over another.

According to their ordinances:

Additional activities. The Planning Director or his or her agent may approve, conditionally approve, or deny special activity permit requests for the following types of uses. These uses may be permitted for a period of time not to exceed thirty-two (32) days. The thirty-two (32) days allowed under a special use permit application shall not be broken into more than three (3) individual times per calendar year. Applications for such uses shall be on forms provided by the City and shall include all necessary information to review such requests for compliance with all applicable regulations.

(1)

Christmas tree sales;

(2)

Carnivals, festivals, and exhibits by non-profit community groups;

(3)

Sidewalk sales and special retail promotional events;

(4)

Horse shows and exhibitions not located at an existing equestrian center;

(5)

Promotional tents for car dealers; and

(6)

Any special activity proposed for a residential district (shall require adjacent property owner approval).

They signed up for these ordinances when the purchased their house. There is nothing stopping them from following them except their own laziness. Either that, or they are hiding something.

At least I know my positions is fiction, and say so up front.

I was just pointing out to Skull that neighborhoods are already zoned for residential parking.

I've no idea what I said to make you think I claimed they were running a business.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Its just like a yard sale. Have one a couple of times a year, no biggie. Every Saturday? You just became a merchant which would not be permissible without the appropriate licenses.

 

[daveman]

I don't care if they are showing bi-weekly porno flicks with Palin and Rice....if the neighbors object, the neighbors object. One homeowner does not get to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

Oh, you mean like the one homeowner who complained?

Yeah.

So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, you mean like the one homeowner who complained?

Yeah.

So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

No, that's not what I said.

Someone complained. The couple was told to get a permit. They did not. They got fined.

The permitting process hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors. The neighbors, as a collection, get to decide what goes on in their neighborhood.

 

[daveman]

Yeah.

So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

No, that's not what I said.

Someone complained. The couple was told to get a permit. They did not. They got fined.

The permitting process hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors. The neighbors, as a collection, get to decide what goes on in their neighborhood.

According to the article, most of the neighbors are supportive. According to the video, one neighbor complained.

Does getting the permit hinge on getting permission from ALL neighbors, or a majority?

 

[strollingbones]

i got this in an email this am.....invite to an event:

We ask that you rideshare and drive 4WD or front wheel drive vehicles if possible. Additional parking at a location along Little Creek will be provided for those who cannot drive up Briar Ridge.
Look for signs and assistance when you arrive.
Please be considerate of the neighborhood and area by driving slowly.


how do you people survive in the city ?