Religious persecution, or overbearing regulations?

#1 there are is ONE SIDE presented this issue. We are hearing only the "facts" they are wishing to present. Ever hear one side of a divorce? That other person always sure sounds like an SOB, don't they?

#2 the claims have not been vetted and if true, what context did they occur in? While likely not appropriate, I could definitely see how that would be asked, especially if the plaintiff was being uncooperative and denying they were meeting for religous bible study.

#3 when you willfully only look at one side of the story, and cnveniently omit other relevant information, just to present a case of discrimination, it is easy to see the victimization sympathy one is looking to invoke. Somehow, I don't see the same people (in this thread) coming to the defense of a black person crying foul over claims of racial discrimination, but I could be wrong

#4 what could the rest of the story be? is there any conceivable scenario within this city's zoning laws that would make the counter argument viable?