Religious persecution, or overbearing regulations?
From the article:
Wallar said the person who filed the complaint alleged that Bible study was drawing 30 to 40 cars.
In an interview yesterday, the pastor said at most, there are six additional cars on Bible study day. Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church in National City, said he has visitors park in a lot that he owns beside his house.
Now not being there to witness it myself, I have no way of knowing if the person complaining is closer to being correct about the number of cars or the pastor was correct in saying "at most, there are six additional cars...." But if he has his visitors park in a vacant lot beside his home, and there had not been a complaint in the five years that the gatherings had been taking place, I don't think it's unreasonable to deduce that this issue was less about parking or neighborhood inconvenience as it was an individual angry that his car had been dinged by one of the visitors (the pastor/neighbor reportedly paid for the damages).
None of the reports speak of neighbors being deluged by the sounds emanating from the pastor's home, none mention singing, loud proclamations or other noise problems and none mention large numbers of people. They only mention the nature of the gathering. And since the warning was not for parking or traffic violations, there is reason to believe that at least the stated purpose of the inquiries was to determine the nature of the meetings. So I return to my question relating to the type of questions asked by the code enforcement officer (who is not to my knowledge a law enforcement officer, such as a policeman). Wouldn't a simple question like "Is this regular meeting of a religious nature?" and leave it at that, if that was all they were trying to ascertain? What could the possible benefit to her investigation be to ask if they say amen, pray or engage in any other activity? Therein lies the rub for me, in many ways.
Remove religion from the equation for a moment, as some would like to do. Say you have a weekly grill night and poker game with around 15-20 friends and spouses. Most, if not all, of your guests park in a vacant lot by your home and all activities of the group take place indoors, except for the cooking. The weekly group gets together for five years without incident before a code enforcement office knocks on your door and starts to ask questions.
"Do you have a group that meets here every week?"
"Does any of your party pitch in financially for any of the things they eat or drink?" (the officer may have an issue with whether your are profiting from these gatherings and therefore need a business license)
"Does any of your party drink alcohol in your home?" (the officer may have an issue with the age of those involved in drinking or combined with the previous question may think you need a liquor license)
"Does anyone tell crude jokes?"
"Does anyone smoke in your home?"
"Do you smoke pot?"
"Do you have sex with your spouse or anyone else's spouse after these gatherings?"
None of these activities are illegal (except the pot smoking) and can't possibly justify a probing investigation of your activities in your own home.
OK, the questions are pretty silly, but the point is that the code enforcement officer needed only determine whether there was a religious nature to the meetings to justify (wrongly it turns out) the warning and the more probing questions (if they in fact took place) were IMO unwarranted, invasive and improper. What I do in my home is none of the government's business if it is not illegal. A group meeting for any lawful purpose is none of their business. So if the officer asked the question in a straightforward manner and it was answered honestly, why the more penetrating questions?