Quantcast

Home bible studies illegal in America

Autarchic 2012/02/27 17:35:25
California City Closes Down Bible Study in Private Home
In Orange County, California, it is illegal to hold a religious meeting in your home.

This is what Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, discovered when they were fined $300 earlier this month for holding a Bible study class on their property.

Officialdom in the county said the couple were singled out because it is considered illegal to hold “a regular gathering of more than three people” on private property. Officials stated that the Fromms require a license to hold meetings in their home.

San Juan Capistrano authorities claim home Bible study is not allowed because it is a “church,” and churches require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in residential areas.

The Fromms face additional fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to the Pacific Justice Institute.

The city’s action is a brazen violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees free worship without government intervention.

PJI and the Fromms plan to appeal a decision made by the city to uphold the fine and restriction to the California Superior Court in Orange County, according to KCOY 12 News, a Fox affiliate.

Ironically, the city of San Juan Capistrano was founded as a mission in the late 1700s by Catholic priest Junipero Serra. A local chapel established by Serra is the oldest standing building in California.


You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Bozette 2012/02/27 18:58:23
    Bozette
    +10
    This is covered under the Constitution...oh that's right...our elected officials don't know what that is.

    Saying that a Bible study group is a "church" is like saying a book club is a "library".

    If a few friends want to get together in one of their homes because they share a common interest, the government has no place regulating that.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • txasap@hotmail.com 2012/03/24 02:04:25
    txasap@hotmail.com
    +4
    Are you people absolutely crazy, I believe that you should be able to hold a personal meeting of most any kind your a bible study of a handful of ladies effects no one it is enclosed doors so therefore it is an invasion of privacy. This is wrong on so many levels. Please people heed this we must band together and stop this insanity. I believe it is only going to worse.
  • Truthseeker 2012/03/13 06:14:49
    Truthseeker
    +3
    Yes but they were having meetings twice a week with over 50 people. That technically is a church. Bridge clubs and book clubs don't usually have 50 people dominating a neighborhood twice a week. Let's get our facts straight people and not freak out without researching the truth. It has nothing to do with it being associated with Christianity. http://losangeles.cbslocal.co...
  • JESSE H... Truthse... 2012/07/22 12:41:05
    JESSE HOWARD
    +3
    @TRUTHSEEKER.....YOU ARE LYING....EVEN THE ARTICLE IN YOUR COMMENT SAYS IT ONLY HAS TO BE 3 OR MORE PEOPLE. YOU DON'T NEED A CUP TO HAVE A WEEKLY NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH MTG, TUPPERWARE, AVON MTG OR WEEKLY BOOK CLUB....EXCEPT IF YOUR BOOK IS THE BIBLE. THAT'S WRONG PERIOD. SO YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU SAY IT HAS TO BE 50 PEOPLE.
  • crishelle Truthse... 2013/08/14 01:17:25
    crishelle
    +2
    It's true that one had 50 people but the law said more than 3 people...also, 50 people would easily fit in. My house without causing a problem...I really don't think it's the number of people here but the reason for the gathering...this is just the beginning of this...watch and see
  • KateDawg87 2012/03/06 19:15:27
    KateDawg87
    +5
    Thank goodness. My neighbors have a bible study every week. I can never find a parking space and all the teenage drivers make me nervous.
  • McRabbi 2012/03/05 16:36:48
  • Autarchic McRabbi 2012/03/05 16:42:26
  • McRabbi 2012/03/05 16:36:05
  • Bocephus 2012/02/29 17:01:37
  • Mr.Reasonable 2012/02/29 16:54:43
  • teigan 2012/02/28 19:33:23
    teigan
    +2
    It's a violation of the Constitution. If they are not prohibiting bridge clubs and book clubs held in a home, it would also be discrimination.
  • Reggie☮ 2012/02/28 17:07:02
    Reggie☮
    +3
    The only reason they are being bothered over this is because it is Bible study. If they were playing bridge there would be no problem.
  • DeeB 2012/02/28 13:27:38
    DeeB
    +3
    And what are the people going to do about it? What have they done about all the insanity up to now? Nothing, so the blame lies with the people. Except for the OWS, they had it right yet everybody was against them. Stand up and be counted, show these psychopaths that the party is over and we refuse to follow anything they say. Hit the damned streets.
  • Andy 2012/02/27 23:16:50
    Andy
    +4
    WOW... next California will be banning Tupperware and Pampered Chef parties!!
  • WorkersUnite 2012/02/27 23:00:23
    WorkersUnite
    Good.
  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/02/27 21:45:11
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    +5
    They should file a civil suit against the town.

    How many permits were issued for partiers in private homes in the same town?

    As long as they are not disturbing the peace the town has no business there.
  • Gregaj7 2012/02/27 20:50:44
    Gregaj7
    +3
    Adhesion contracts, with municipalities, are what makes this possible, along with the recipients (Fromms) being without the education of the 'militarily-held democracy' and its requirements. I saw this about the Fromms last year. If this happened to me, the municipal agents would be receiving a "Conditional Acceptance" and a copy of my "AFFIDAVIT OF STATUS AND DECLARATION" sent Certified Mail through Notary Presentment. While I am prepared for any response they might give, I would not be
    expecting one. Incidentally, equity DEED is not Legal Title to the land, but only user title for the purpose of buy/sell/trade.
  • Woody 2012/02/27 19:13:39
    Woody
    +3
    That's California...
  • Bozette 2012/02/27 18:58:23
    Bozette
    +10
    This is covered under the Constitution...oh that's right...our elected officials don't know what that is.

    Saying that a Bible study group is a "church" is like saying a book club is a "library".

    If a few friends want to get together in one of their homes because they share a common interest, the government has no place regulating that.
  • Gregaj7 Bozette 2012/02/27 20:52:37
    Gregaj7
    +1
    Actually, they do. The Lord has shown me precisely how this works. Please see my comment above.
  • Bozette Gregaj7 2012/02/28 00:24:59
    Bozette
    +2
    I think I know the general direction you are going with this as I have read some of your posts from a while back, but I haven't gotten that far into it all yet. So please explain it to me. Are you referring to planned communities?
  • Gregaj7 Bozette 2012/02/28 00:46:07
    Gregaj7
    +4
    It has to do with many facets of Law. Trust Law (public and private). It also has to do with 'adhesion' contracts (municipal requirements to do things, who's jurisdiction is extremely limited to delegated authority). The right to contract, or not-to-contract, is un-a-lien-able. In the case of the Fromms, IF they have the DEED to their house (no mortgage), they still have property-tax (adhesion) for the "services" (fire, police, school, etc) of being a "resident" (look that up in a Law dictionary) in that area. Having Land Patent/Allodial Title (Sovereign) eliminates all of that. Then the living vessel holding true title can privately bond the "services" needed/wanted, without losing claim. That would partly eliminate their problems of not being "allowed" to have mtgs at their "residence" (under Patent, a 'residence' becomes a Domicile). The problem then becomes the effort of the municipality continuing to challenge their stance of Sovereignty, since municipal-corporations absolutely HATE to lose "assets".
  • Bozette Gregaj7 2012/02/28 01:45:00
    Bozette
    +3
    So what it boils down to is that any time we interact via signature with the government we are entering into a contract, which if we may not truly understand that or all of its provisions is an adhesion contract. Because the right to contract is our unalienable right, by doing so we are ceding other unalienable rights to the entity with which we are contracting.
  • Gregaj7 Bozette 2012/02/28 02:14:14
    Gregaj7
    +3
    WELL DONE!! :)
    "which if we may not truly understand that or all of its provisions is an adhesion contract." The hypocrisy of this system is that "they" know you don't know the provisions of the adhesion contract, however, by the system's design, the knowledge is presumed due to the availability of the necessary information (terms and definitions of the legal language of the adhesion contracts) in Law libraries that are accessible in one form or another.
    The Living Vessel signature IS the authority. Without it, commerce stops.
  • Bozette Gregaj7 2012/02/28 02:23:24
    Bozette
    +2
    Thank you. I have been meaning to delve into this and really need to get serious about doing so.
  • Gregaj7 Bozette 2012/02/28 02:50:08
    Gregaj7
    +3
    Excellent idea. Your perspective is truly on-track. Please feel free to ask any questions or where to find certain info. A friend (one of my question/blog subjects) has nicknamed me "The Library of Congress" for being a repository of info with regard to Sovereignty and being able to be Sui Juris (of One's own Law). :)
  • Bozette Gregaj7 2012/02/28 02:54:56
    Bozette
    +3
    Thank you, I really appreciate that! I am sure you'll be hearing from me.
  • Nightmusic Bozette 2012/02/28 03:36:37
    Nightmusic
    +2
    It's not a real contract because it gives the other side an open ended unlimited right at any time to call in your markers, so to speak and twist your arm to do anything. That's not a contract. And besides as a home owner you've paid for all that stuff with taxes, so it belongs to you anyway.
  • Bozette Nightmusic 2012/02/28 04:54:57
    Bozette
    +4
    Adhesion contracts are both real and common. They may, if challenged and the judge rules in your favor be ruled null and void, but there is no guarantee. The vast majority of the laws today are not Constitutional, but unless/until you get a judge to rule in your favor and it is upheld on appeal if any appeals are filed, that effectively means nothing.

  • 9th of 9 Bozette 2012/02/28 12:31:04
    9th of 9
    +3
    Sickens me.
  • Bozette 9th of 9 2012/02/28 17:59:08
    Bozette
    +2
    Me too, 9th.
  • Nightmusic Gregaj7 2012/02/28 03:32:37
  • Gregaj7 Nightmusic 2012/02/28 05:38:29
    Gregaj7
    +3
    If this was 2005, I would agree with you completely. I started legal/historical studies in January 2006 that continue to this day.
    United States citizens (14th amendment) only have privileges and immunities, not rights. You might be totally shocked as to just who is "We the People" and who the Constitution truly applies to. Since it is a legal document, and legal terms are different than common parlance, one might want to use a Law dictionary in researching that document. I also recommend researching the term "constitutor" in a Law dictionary. Thanks for reading.
  • say what? 2012/02/27 18:49:21
    say what?
    +6
    This is a prime example of citizens allowing their governments, be it local, state or federal, to oppress them.
  • Kaimeso 2012/02/27 18:15:00
    Kaimeso
    +1
    What the article is supposed to be saying is the town has an ordinance against holding regulary scheduled meetings at a single location in a residential area without a permit. I would guess this is to prevent people clogging up the streets with a lot of parked cars, noise, etc,... This would apply to various clubs and groups and not exclusively to religious groups as the misleading title of this post would imply.

    Still I do think many cities go to far with trying to regulate their citizens. But I wonder how the Fromm supporters would feel if another neighbor was to hold regularly scheduled exotic dancer classes in their home teaching special tip raising techniques to strippers, err, I mean dancers.
  • Autarchic Kaimeso 2012/02/27 18:21:07
    Autarchic
    +4
    This is not about dancers, they were not doing business either..
  • Kaimeso Autarchic 2012/02/27 18:29:38
    Kaimeso
    Who said it was a business, perhaps they are just providing classes to help out fellow dancers improve their lives? The point is both are regulary scheduled meetings in a residential area which according to the town violates the ordinances.

    But you don't like dancers so how about we change it to a motorcycle or hot rod club or are you wanting to give religious people speical privileges?
  • teigan Kaimeso 2012/02/28 19:28:38
    teigan
    +1
    How about book clubs and bridge club meetings. I wonder if the city has busted them as well?
  • Kaimeso teigan 2012/02/29 02:42:11
    Kaimeso
    +2
    I wonder too, but as in most towns ordinances are only selectively enforced, usually because of some complaint.
  • teigan Kaimeso 2012/03/01 18:54:23
    teigan
    +2
    Especially when it comes to religion today. Gotta wonder how they came up with an ordinance that doesn't allow a regular gathering of 3 or more people. 3 people? They have got to be kidding. Most households have more than 3 people living in them, they probably regularly gather for dinner. LOL

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/23 08:31:08

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals