And your point is? Perhaps you could post some legal case to prove me wrong.

Troll.

Gee, I wonder if that trick would work on the US Congress and Senate? If the general public could sue and harass enough of them scoundrels, maybe we could break the lobbyist influence of the MPAA, RIAA, and NRA. Naaahhh!

This is a weekly event (Tuesdays) and has been going on for 5 years.

Knowing and reference “the Constitution” is but the first step in a maturing line of education and life experiences. Keep going.

When constitutional rights are in conflict, saying someone is ignorant of one of the rights is addressing only part of the argument.

Puerile, callow, shallow, inexperienced, naive, uneducated—Patrick.

It is only “at issue” for those ignorant of the 1st Amendment…

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.

Which is illegal for religious practice in private homes.

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?

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.

(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.

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.

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.

”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.