• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

do not have more than three people to dinner and pray

C

cda

Sawhorse 123
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
20,963
Location
Basement
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”.

Print|Email

San Juan Capistrano Fines Family for Reading Bible without Permit

Tim Cavanaugh | September 21, 2011

The city of San Juan Capistrano, California is laying heavy fines on a local couple for hosting semi-regular bible readings in their home. From the Los Angeles CBS affiliate:

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…

After city officials rejected the Fromms’ appeal, PJI, which represents other Bible study participants, will appeal the decision to the California Superior Court in Orange County…

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 city attorney says the meetings have attracted “up to 50 people.” He claims the meetings are held Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons, which would mean gross revenue of $1,000 a week for a city where the utilities agencies alone run at a deficit more than a third the size of their total budget, and whose finances are being subject to lengthy and expensive audits.

Here is a handy timeline [pdf] of the city’s campaign against the Fromms’ bible readings at chuckfromm.net.

Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus notes the irony of the city’s violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious expression in a city that was founded as a mission by Junipero Serra and is best known for a quasi-religious legend about cliff swallows. “In a city so rich with religious history and tradition, this is particularly egregious,” Dacus says in a PJI statement. “An informal gathering in a home cannot be treated with suspicion by the government, or worse than any other gathering of friends, just because it is religious. We cannot allow this to happen in America, and we will fight as long and as hard as it takes to restore this group’s religious freedom.”

another article::

http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/view/full_story/15491252/article-Capistrano-Couple-in-Legal-Battle-for-Hosting-Bible-Study-in-Home?instance=eye_on_sjc
 
That was funny fatboy.

If they are getting "up to 50 people" twice a week, there are at least 30 cars descending on the neighborhood each time. I wouldn't be all that thrilled if it was on my street.
 
My reaction was to the "more than three people" and may have been UP to fifty. But more towards the three, serious?
 
50.....got panic bars?.....but seriously.....it is a slippery slope.....we have alot of start-up mini churches in houses around this area, enforcement nightmare for zoning and us, unles it is commercially advertised, I don't know that there is much we can do....
 
Oh yeah, the chuches jump into any space that is available, and then tell you they wil NEVER have over 50 people. Like I said, my reaction was to the ridulously low threshold of 3 people to trigger a commercial application. 10 maybe, 20? But 3?
 
At some point it moves from a bible study to a worship center/church. The question is at what point? 3,10,25, peope meeting once a month or once a week. As long as he has not created a 501C or take an offering then I would lean towards it is just a weekly bible study although on a Sunday morning some might label it a home church nework of individualshttp://www.chuckfromm.net/about_chuck/''>http://www.chuckfromm.net/about_chuck/' rel="external nofollow">

http://www.chuckfromm.net/about_chuck/
 
There is a very prominent move towards home churches right now in the Christian faith - I think this is something zoning departments will have to deal with for years/decades. I see both sides of this issue as valid - but the 3 threshold is kinda ridiculous!

Footnote - and full disclosure time: Last night happened to be my "life group" meeting for our church. I'd say there were 25 of us, in two home next to each other with about 8 cars. It was a busy street, but not crazy. Now - if for some reason our group were to grow to 40 or 50 - I'd be very concerned about traffic/parking, and we'd split the group.

Home churches on the other hand - would need to find a more appropriate place to meet, and that could take a couple of years or more, and those neighbors would have a valid concern.

Where's the reasonable compromise?
 
fatboy said:
Oh yeah, the chuches jump into any space that is available, and then tell you they wil NEVER have over 50 people. Like I said, my reaction was to the ridulously low threshold of 3 people to trigger a commercial application. 10 maybe, 20? But 3?
Click to expand...
What do they do when you have family and friends over for Turkey Misgivings Day? I know some of these types of gathering have involved prayers. I would doubt the City is handling this in an equal and consistent fashion.
 
Darren Emery said:
Home churches on the other hand - would need to find a more appropriate place to meet, and that could take a couple of years or more, and those neighbors would have a valid concern.
Click to expand...
...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting (and there's the rub. how is one to establish quorum?)
 
Our office would happily take the complaint from the "one" home owner that was mentioned in the article.

We would go to the site, and observe whether or not there was a church there. File a report saying we only found a house and no church. Then when the person called and complained a second time we would tell him/her that it will be hard to post a violation on something like that.

We don't work nights or weekends, we do not have the budget for overtime, and we may get sued if we don't let government employees opt out of work on Sunday.
 
City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit

from the table

Certain permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses may be subject to special conditions regarding location, operation, or the design of the use. The sections of this title governing these uses are identified in the "notes and exceptions" column of Table 3-1.

Religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations (nonprofit)

Includes churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The city is on very thin ice and may end up chatting with the DOJ.

Does the city similarly go after a group of friends that gather each Sunday afternoon to watch football?

You cannot discriminate against religious gatherings any different than other gatherings and in some cases not as much.

At 50 occupants you might get into safety concerns with exits.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/religiousfreedom.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/rluipa.php

From the Federal Law

§ 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

© 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.
 
Isn't there something that allows people to assemble freely?

Oh right - the Constitition.
 
Mac

come on were are in the USA?????

you need a permit to assemble, oh yea and the permit is not free
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top