California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home
 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cali...in-their-home/

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.

Stephanie said most of their neighbors are very supportive, although she said one has voiced concerns in the past.

“We don’t like lawsuits, but we have to stand up for what’s right. It’s not just a personal issue,” she said. “Can you imagine anybody in any neighborhood, that one person can call and make it a living hell for someone else? That’s wrong … and it’s just sad.”

San Juan Capistrano’s religious roots run deep — the city is best known for a historic Catholic mission built in the 1700s.

“Imposing a heavy-handed permit requirement on a home Bible study is outrageous,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “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.”

Well, let's see here,

The court just ruled that day laborers could gather without a permit, so I'm wondering if this couple can just rely on that ruling.

That said, I don't know why one person should be able to defy the code. There are churches, parks, halls, and other venues available, so why bring such a large gathering to your quiet neighborhood. They said they paid a lot of money for their home, but that's just what it is; a home, not a church or meeting hall.

illegal aliens
 

They can not stop 100 illegal aliens from gathering on the streets but they are stopping Bible Studies on Private Property?

Idea
 

We need to give the day laborers Bibles and get them to pray!

Day laborers with bibles aren't going to get hired. The people employing them want unprincipled, lawless slaves with no hope, faith, or respect, and ready to worship only the dollar and the one's supplying that.

Wow! Our church encourages a few to gather to Bible study in a home. Guess that will change as of now!

Codes are seldom aimed at small gatherings. This couple seems to have pushed the envelope of casual, small groups of visitors.

I don't care either way about bible studies, so long as I'm not coerced into participating.

However, there is something missing in the info. Are they being persecuted, or did they become obnoxious or otherwise overwhelm their neighbors in some manner?

Who or whom is/are the aggrieved / snitch(es), and why?

A just consideration can't be made without further information which includes facts.

Problem !
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

The ruling by 9Th circuit court, El Segundo, certainly has me scrambling to understand it. If any of my California friends have any input/insight I would like to hear it.

Here's the deal:

I'm presently researching the courts decision and I am having a dilemma. Judge Milan Dale Smith,Jr. was in the decision denying the Town the right to control illegal aliens day laborers, essentially giving the laborers the right to assemble, solicit work and call out for car washes. Smith is a Bush appointee * Check him on Wikipedia ). His brother, Gordon, is a Republican and U.S. Senator from Oregon.

Normally I can peg the liberal, left, progressive Judges. For example, years back here in Mamaroneck, New York the day labors sued the local police. Federal Judge Colleen McMahon ruled against the police and appointed a watchdog to surveil the police assuring they would no longer disperse the day laborers, ask them questions or stop the contractors from picking them up. She was a blatant Democrat, liberal, progressive. Yes, I wrote to her - no response.

Federal Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker wrote a book, the Tyranny of Tolerance, exposing the left liberal progressives in the Judiciary. That took lots of courage as he was a sitting Judge.

I'm currently composing a letter to Judge Smith. Initially I was ready to "blast" him and denounce his decision. Enclosing the Federal Customs and Immigration Laws. But upon learning that he is a Bush appointee and presumed Republican, that drew me up short. I took a step back and I am now laboring to understand why/how the Ninth Circuit Court protects the free speech of foreigners here illegally.

Is there something in our Constitution and the amendments that I am missing ? I contemplated that perhaps these judges see things through different glasses. Such as - it is the job of DHS, CBP, ICE to enforce the customs and immigration laws. Not the courts. But there are some Judges who will not allow illegal aliens in the court room!

It holds also in the principles of law that: He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

This is an open invitation to comment before I complete my letter. I will be interested in viewpoints.

Federal Judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, which suggests compromise.

I have read of where individual Judges often issue rulings contrary to political philosophy of the president who nominated him - democrat or republican.

I don't understand why, but the 9th circuit court of appeals may well issue rulings as a body which may be very different than say, the first circuit court of appeals. I think the key is how individual judges interpret the Constitution. I believe the 9th circuit is generally very liberal.

Judges are supposed to be independent from either tyranny of the majority and other political pressure. For example, I'm quite sure that United States vs. Wong Kim Ark went against much public and political sentiment, but it was the last stop for the case and set much precedent.

It may be that Smith doesn't approve of or sympathize with illegal day laborers, but there may be something in the struck down ordinance which Judge Smith saw as a threat to the greater freedoms of Americans and could set precedence to curtail American freedoms. However, you would have to ask him.

Judicial rulings are supposed to be derived from interpretation of the constitution. "interpretation" could boil down to distilling precedence while personal life experience or personal beliefs may well influence decisions - hence Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor's statement that "as a woman and Latina"...

And some judges are just plain corrupt.