Cal couple fined for having Bible study in the privacy of their own home.

[powderman]

 Faith California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home

• Posted on September 19, 2011 at 1:36am by Madeleine Morgenstern
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (174)

   Photo via Flickr user Erwin Vogelaar A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.
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. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.
The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.
“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”
According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.
“There’s no singing or music,” Stephanie said. “It’s meditative.”
The Dispatch reported a code-enforcement officer gave the Fromms a verbal warning about the meetings in May, then returned to issue citations in June and July. According to the paper, the city’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning they only respond to complaints
 
 
Satan is alive and well. POWDERMAN. 

[DDZ]

I'm willing to bet that if they were raising their arms and saying Allahu-Akbar, nothing would have been said.
 I guess I'll have to tell my friends to keep the blinds closed at our Bible study. 

[SwampThing762]

DDZ,

My thoughts exactly.   

ST762

[powderman]

Gotta be careful of these sneaky, subversive types. Nip it in the bud like Barney always said. Why, next thing ya know they'll be saying Jesus name in public, can't have that now can we?? Might offend a muslim or some other low lifes. POWDERMAN. 

[MGMorden]

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not a religious person, but I do disagree with this fine.  Not only is it against the 1st ammendment, but realistically all zoning laws are shams in my opinion.  If you own a piece of property, then any activity that is otherwise legal somewhere else should be legal for you do to there.  I can't stand the concept of the government (or a home owners association) telling you what you can do on your property because the neighbors are afraid their property values might drop a dollar.

[Doublebass73]

Why anyone would voluntarily choose to live in that cesspool is beyond me. California makes Massachusetts and New York look like bastions of freedom.

[nw_hunter]

Faith California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home

• Posted on September 19, 2011 at 1:36am by Madeleine Morgenstern
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (174)

   Photo via Flickr user Erwin Vogelaar A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.
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. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.
The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.
“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”
According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.
“There’s no singing or music,” Stephanie said. “It’s meditative.”
The Dispatch reported a code-enforcement officer gave the Fromms a verbal warning about the meetings in May, then returned to issue citations in June and July. According to the paper, the city’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning they only respond to complaints
 
 
Satan is alive and well. POWDERMAN. 

With the number of folks attending,(50) it really sounds more like "Church Service"
If they moved into a neighborhood with these restrictions already in place and were aware of them, then they are wrong to ignore them. Some small Churches have less attending, and most of them have parking lots.I can see where the parking alone could cause problems for their neighbors!

Sounds to me like it's not what they are doing inside the home, that rankles the neighbors, but what goes on outside. Really need to hear both sides of the story to tell!

[1marty]

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106-274, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please, as well as giving churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.
As long as they meet fire codes, adequate parking  the municipality cannot deny them a permit to have a house of worship. The US DOJ has come down hard on municipalities who try to prevent a house of worship from being established.

[powderman]

They have a house, large back yard, corral, and barn, that tells me theres no curb parking or very close neighbors. As long as the cars are on private property it shouldn't be anybody elses business. POWDERMAN. 

[nomosendero]

I wonder if the neighbors would have been as concerned if this group instead had come over to watch a football game on a big screen, consuming a little popcorn & Cokes?  I think not.

[quasne.inc]

All I can say is, "It's California, what do you expect?".  Just another reason Ill never set foot in that state.

[guzzijohn]

Quote from Powderman;
They have a house, large back yard, corral, and barn, that tells me theres no curb parking or very close neighbors. As long as the cars are on private property it shouldn't be anybody elses business. POWDERMAN.   

Would you all be defending this if it was an Islamic gathering?
GuzziJohn

[nomosendero]

Quote from Powderman;
They have a house, large back yard, corral, and barn, that tells me theres no curb parking or very close neighbors. As long as the cars are on private property it shouldn't be anybody elses business. POWDERMAN.   

Would you all be defending this if it was an Islamic gathering?
GuzziJohn

If it had been we would have never heard about it.

[ironglow]

Quote from Powderman;
They have a house, large back yard, corral, and barn, that tells me theres no curb parking or very close neighbors. As long as the cars are on private property it shouldn't be anybody elses business. POWDERMAN.   

Would you all be defending this if it was an Islamic gathering?
GuzziJohn

***************************************************************************
  As long as they invite polite but curious neighbors in and aren't preaching terrorism or making bombs !           

[BBF]

I agree, if this would have beena Muslim or Jewish gathering nothing would ever have been said.

[powderman]

guzzi. Fair question. In all honesty, NO, I would not. I would want those people far from my home and family. Christians praise the Lord Jesus, they praise a false DEAD, murdering, pedophile prophet and false god. Big difference there. Several communites accross America have tried to stop these vermin from infesting their communities. As far as I know there are no dens of satan in my county, and I would be againt them building one here. POWDERMAN. 

[MGMorden]

Christians praise the Lord Jesus, they praise a false DEAD, murdering, pedophile prophet and false god. Big difference there.

Not in the eyes of the law.  You pray to a deity they don't believe in, they pray to a deity you don't believe in.  Many others believe in neither (actually, the fastest growing affiliation in the country is "Non-religious").


Realistically I think both groups are a bit off their gourd, but it IS the constitutional right of either group to worship how they want.  I think the Christians mentioned in the article are being treated unfairly not because they're Christian, but because their religious freedom is being infringed.  That would still hold true if they were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, or Wiccan.

[Casull]

actually, the fastest growing affiliation in the country is "Non-religious").

 
The use of the term "fastest growing" is meaningless.  If you have 10 people that believe that way and they grow to 20 people, then they have grown by 100%.  But, their numbers would still be insignificant.  And, BTW, "non-religious" does not necessarily mean "non-believers".

[guzzijohn]

guzzi. Fair question. In all honesty, NO, I would not. I would want those people far from my home and family. Christians praise the Lord Jesus, they praise a false DEAD, murdering, pedophile prophet and false god. Big difference there. Several communites accross America have tried to stop these vermin from infesting their communities. As far as I know there are no dens of satan in my county, and I would be againt them building one here. POWDERMAN.   

Kudos PW for giving an honest response. Some parts of the constitution can be a double edged sword but that is the beauty of it, it applies to all whether we believe the same or not. As soon as we become selective we start down a very slippery slope.
GuzziJohn

[MGMorden]

The use of the term "fastest growing" is meaningless.  If you have 10 people that believe that way and they grow to 20 people, then they have grown by 100%.  But, their numbers would still be insignificant.  And, BTW, "non-religious" does not necessarily mean "non-believers".

If you were looking at growth compared to itself, then you might have a point, but the study I'm referencing (the 2008 ARIS Study conducted by Trinity College) the poll method was comparing to percentages of the whole, not comparing interior growth.  It was looking at gains as compared to the total population.  In the last 20 years non-religion has gone from 7% of the population to 15%.  That's an 8% gain in the total population.  In the same period Christianity has fallen from 86% of the population to 76%.  Islam has grown, but contrary to the "they're tekkin over" reports they've gone from 0.3% to 0.8% of the total population.  Judiasm fell from 1.8% to 1.2%, and Bhuddism grew from 0.3% to 0.5%.  Basically, in the last 20 years, every religion except for "No religion" experienced a decline or growth of less than 1% of the population. 


As to "Non-religious" not meaning "Non-believers", it mostly does - at least in a religious context.  You have some Agnostics and other groups who haven't totally abandoned the whole idea of a "something" being out there, but the position by definition states that no current religious doctrines have them convinced of their validity.  Basically, the atheist response is a bit stronger ("I don't believe in any of this"), while the others in the category are of the ("I don't believe any of the ideas currently presented, but might be convinced by others").  In any event, neither group are currently believers. 

[Casull]

If you were looking at growth compared to itself, then you might have a point, but the study I'm referencing (the 2008 ARIS Study conducted by Trinity College) the poll method was comparing to percentages of the whole, not comparing interior growth.  It was looking at gains as compared to the total population.  In the last 20 years non-religion has gone from 7% of the population to 15%.  That's an 8% gain in the total population.  In the same period Christianity has fallen from 86% of the population to 76%.  Islam has grown, but contrary to the "they're tekkin over" reports they've gone from 0.3% to 0.8% of the total population.  Judiasm fell from 1.8% to 1.2%, and Bhuddism grew from 0.3% to 0.5%.  Basically, in the last 20 years, every religion except for "No religion" experienced a decline or growth of less than 1% of the population.

 
MGMorden, you sort of proved my point there.  Even though "non-religious" are the fastest growing group, they are still a small minority and are outnumbered by Christians by more than a 5 to 1 margin.
 
 
 

As to "Non-religious" not meaning "Non-believers", it mostly does - at least in a religious context.  You have some Agnostics and other groups who haven't totally abandoned the whole idea of a "something" being out there, but the position by definition states that no current religious doctrines have them convinced of their validity.

 
I would be surprised if that definition was explained to those who were polled.  I've talked with people who have said "Oh, I'm not religious", and when asked whether they believe in God have responded "Oh, yes".  I think many people who are not affliated with a church or attend services consider themselves as non-religious, but still believe in a Supreme Being.

[SwampThing762]

TM7,

In Tennessee and Kentucky, they would likely call the event a barbecue, and it is a sure bet there will be a lot of pork.

BTW, did I mention I am from Tennessee?   

ST762

[powderman]

SWAMPTHING. I  believe it is Murphesboro TN, can't remember the beseiged community in KY though. The people spoke clearly and plainly. We don't want satans disciples here, go elsewhere. They showed several muslim, uhh I guess female, couldn't really tell with the costume on, and it said they just didn't feel welcome there. Well, DUUUUUHHHHH. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

I agree, if this would have beena Muslim or Jewish gathering nothing would ever have been said.

.
On this case...there seems to be reports that this Christian group was not 501(c) and not dispensationalists types....taught Christianity without or before Darby-Scofield influence....no wonder they were shut down if that is true.
 
..TM7
.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
  Doesn't matter what sectarian views they were teaching, so long as they werew no more disruptive than their neighbors when they watch football, play basketball or have a barbeque...those busybody neighbors should just.....BUTT OUT !

[ironglow]

  TM:
   Obviously, but Christians are getting accustomed to that in some neighborhoods..   They shouldn't though..

[ironglow]

This one sure smacks of fascism:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041504/Police-tell-cafe-owner-Stop-showing-Bible-DVDs-arrest-you.html

[powderman]

IRONGLOW. Thanks for that link. Good for Mr Murray, may God bless him. Homosexuals hate the truth. They were offended?? GOOOODDDDD. They don't like eating there?? LEAVE. If I don't like something in a restaurant I go elsewhere, I reckon that makes too much sense. POWDERMAN. 

[BBF]

I keep reading the labeling of pedophile in reference to the Prophet Mohammad.
Considering the location of this marriage and consummation at a later date this wasn't  any violation in that part of the world.
 
IMO another case were legal or moral concepts of one culture is judged in another.

[SHOOTALL]

Faith California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home

• Posted on September 19, 2011 at 1:36am by Madeleine Morgenstern
• Print »
• Email »

• Comments (174)

   Photo via Flickr user Erwin Vogelaar A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.
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. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.
The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.
“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”
According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.
“There’s no singing or music,” Stephanie said. “It’s meditative.”
The Dispatch reported a code-enforcement officer gave the Fromms a verbal warning about the meetings in May, then returned to issue citations in June and July. According to the paper, the city’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning they only respond to complaints
 
 
Satan is alive and well. POWDERMAN. 

So why not get a permit ? Did anyone consider when getting a permit you alert the local govt. of large crowds that may need help in an emg. ? Knowing a large crowd was on the property may be a good thing in the event of an earth quake etc.