Religious persecution, or overbearing regulations? (6 Viewers)

[crosswatt]

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' Yes.
The county employee notified the couple that the small bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of county regulations, according to Broyles.

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html
What say you?

 

[Bleu Raeder]

Unconstitutional - the questions the county official asked

 

[Shawn]

There's more to this story, I assure you.

I'd bet anything there were more than 15 people attending on average, and that this was prompted by complaints from the neighbors.

The righteous outrage should tell you the story isn't complete. Whenever you hear stories about kittens and orphans being tortured, you know the story isn't accurate.

 

[4saintspirit]

There's more to this story, I assure you.

I'd bet anything there were more than 15 people attending on average, and that this was prompted by complaints from the neighbors.

The righteous outrage should tell you the story isn't complete. Whenever you hear stories about kittens and orphans being tortured, you know the story isn't accurate.

i agree there is more to the story -- but I did not think there is a law against parties (meetings) regardless of whether it was regular or not (unless of course this was a business -- church whatever)
-- I mean my mom belongs to a regular book club, and investment club, if she hosts this regularly is this against a county law -- seems strange to me --

 

[St. Widge]

There's more to this story, I assure you.

I'd bet anything there were more than 15 people attending on average, and that this was prompted by complaints from the neighbors.

The righteous outrage should tell you the story isn't complete. Whenever you hear stories about kittens and orphans being tortured, you know the story isn't accurate.

I'm sure there is more to the story and I'm sure this is more about neighbors complaining about people parking on their lawns or in front of their houses than anything else. It's clearly not some religious persecution or an attempt by the atheist cabal to destroy all religion. Still, it is disturbing that what appears to be a mere inconvenience to the neighbors is being used to deny First Amendment Rights.

I'm sure there is a law that has a requirement for some kind of permit to be obtained if you have a regular meeting with 15 or more people and that it theoretically applies here since people park on the public streets. But, my first inclination, without being able to actually read the ordinance, is that at least in this application, it's an unreasonable restriction of the right to free speech and freedom of religion in the Fist Amendment. Of course, my mind could change if I ever get the chance to read the actual ordinance.

 

[JimEverett]

Here is what the Supreme Court has said:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."

 

[St. Widge]

Here is what the Supreme Court has said:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."

I'm assuming that is based on the idea that unless the act is done with the specific intent to restrict a religious practice. Of course, I've never been a big fan of rights being protected by "reasonable procedures" as opposed to actually being given their full effect.

I'm also wondering how any City ordinance regarding free assembly and permits can be allowed to apply to private property, especially a private home? I'm not sure that would be a "reasonable restriction" under any but the most severe circumstances. i.e. the Branch Davidians.

 

[Shawn]

All good points. Almost every city has laws on the books about regular meetings over a certain size. In most cases, they are stupid and overbearing, but also rarely enforced--unless it becomes an issue with other people in the community.

There was in issue here in Los Angeles regarding a house in a residential neighborhood, where some regular meetings of Orthodox Jews take place. They renovated the house (it was a huge house) to accomodate it for meetings--that's almost all it's used for--and the meetings are enormous. I would guess about 100 people. It's essentially a synagogue, but they escape because of the religious nature of their meetings. In this case, the neighbors have a right to be angry, as they are seriously impacted.

I agree that in this San Diego case, the religious nature of their meetings needs to be respected--but it's also true that if they are meeting regularly, and impacting their neighbors, there needs to be some system of recourse so that the neighbors are treated fairly.

Who knows what the whole story is, but the story that is linked is suspiciously scarce on details.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm assuming that is based on the idea that unless the act is done with the specific intent to restrict a religious practice. Of course, I've never been a big fan of rights being protected by "reasonable procedures" as opposed to actually being given their full effect.

Its one of my favorite cases - Employment Division v. Smith. And the majority takes the view that if it is a valid state law that does not target religion, and it does not somehow mess with other protections (which in this case it might, i.e. freedom of association) then it is not a violation. No reasonableness test need apply.

 

[St. Widge]

All good points. Almost every city has laws on the books about regular meetings over a certain size. In most cases, they are stupid and overbearing, but also rarely enforced--unless it becomes an issue with other people in the community.

There was in issue here in Los Angeles regarding a house in a residential neighborhood, where some regular meetings of Orthodox Jews take place. They renovated the house (it was a huge house) to accomodate it for meetings--that's almost all it's used for--and the meetings are enormous. I would guess about 100 people. It's essentially a synagogue, but they escape because of the religious nature of their meetings. In this case, the neighbors have a right to be angry, as they are seriously impacted.

I agree that in this San Diego case, the religious nature of their meetings needs to be respected--but it's also true that if they are meeting regularly, and impacting their neighbors, there needs to be some system of recourse so that the neighbors are treated fairly.

Who knows what the whole story is, but the story that is linked is suspiciously scarce on details.

Similar things are going on out in Old Metairie near Bonnabel. There is a Catholic Church (I don't recall which one) that is on the corner of Bonnabel and Metairie Road. It's been there for years, but it is apparently growing and the parking has been a problem for the neighbors. A few years ago, the Church started buying up lots, tearing down houses and turning them into small parking lots. The neighbors don't like that either.

But, I do think that is a different issue since any church is a "business", not a privately owned home so I think different rules should apply. I sypathize with neighbors for the parking problems, but at the same point, I'm uncomfortable with them telling people what they can or can't do in their own home. Now in the case you mentioned in San Diego, it sounds like they crossed the line to more or less being the same as a "business."

Anway, like you said, we don't have enough facts to know exactly what is going on in this case.

 

[St. Widge]

Its one of my favorite cases - Employment Division v. Smith. And the majority takes the view that if it is a valid state law that does not target religion, and it does not somehow mess with other protections (which in this case it might, i.e. freedom of association) then it is not a violation. No reasonableness test need apply.

Interesting case and I do think it sounds right, at least to the extent that it is restricted to cases where freedom of assembly, etc. and where religious freedom is not specifically targeted.

 

[purvis_guy]

From the info provided it sounds also like a county beaurocrat whose power has gone to his head.

 

[Shawn]

From the info provided it sounds also like a county beaurocrat whose power has gone to his head.

There are very few facts to make a judgement on.

It sounds to me like a county bureaucrat was called in to enforce the letter of some kind of zoning rules.

If the facts as stated were true, there is virtually no way anybody could ever, ever know this was even going on. meetings of 15 people are small--it's like a dinner party or a poker game.

How did they find out about these meetings, and why would they care? If you follow the (typical) reasoning that bureaucrats are lazy and overworked, this is the last thing they'd want to get involved in.

 

[crosswatt]

There are very few facts to make a judgement on.

It sounds to me like a county bureaucrat was called in to enforce the letter of some kind of zoning rules.

If the facts as stated were true, there is virtually no way anybody could ever, ever know this was even going on. meetings of 15 people are small--it's like a dinner party or a poker game.

How did they find out about these meetings, and why would they care? If you follow the (typical) reasoning that bureaucrats are lazy and overworked, this is the last thing they'd want to get involved in.

It had to be a complaint by a neighbor. The link was the only one I saw, but it is on Drudge, so I'm sure national attention is going to ferret out the rest of the story. IIRC, they did the same thing to a sex club in Florida not too long ago, but they used the "residential not business" zoning regs, due to the "pay to play" nature of the club.

 

[brophy]

The county wanted a major use permit.

It looks to me like an attempt to make it look like a religious freedom issue when it's really about local ordinances that require a permit if you're going to have regular gatherings of significant numbers of people.

Not really enough info for more than speculation though.

It reminds me of the stories about people with enormous flags in their front yards that whip in the wind and make lots of noise, and when officials try to do something about the noise, they're blasted for persecuting someone for being "too patriotic."

This certainly isn't a constitutional dilemma. But to engage on the merits...
The issue isn't what goes on inside your home, but instead the "externalites" that your meeting imposes on your neighbors.
When you live in a city with finite parking space in your neighborhood, your neighbors have a right to care about the cars parked on the street in front of their house.

If you disagree, then are there any limits? What if I want to hold a "Phish" concert in my backyard?

[/realityEndsThisThread]