San Diego tries to ban Christianity

@Thomas,

Thomas this is kind of like stating no problem in allowing Wal-Mart to build a store with zero parking as we will then control the situation that result with parking tickets.

In any case I am confuse if the town had back away from one law design to control parking and other problems in a residence neighborhood why do you think that they would then have the nerve to enforce another law?

The Pastor would just go back on Fox and claim that the town once more had declare war on good Christians.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Planning Commissions do reviews of the plans of Walmarts all the time. They review the plans wrt exsting ordinances (water sewer parking lighting safety etc). To retroactively create spot zoning "after the fact" (as in the pastors case) seemed to have made San Diego look a bit foolish by incluing religion as one of the reasons for writing the citation.
Obviously you dont see the glaring connection , but you arent the one that had to backpedal a muni's decision. I suspect that the ordinances will be changed and that "senditivity training" will be beefed up to prevent future stupid moves.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Actually, San Diego has pretty stringent zoning laws in general and Walmart
was turned down by the city to build a new store within city limits. There are
two Walmarts in SD county, but none in the city, and it will remain that way.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-ordinances/10560483-1.html

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

that proves my point to BillR. Im sure a "quality of life" issue was invoked like what we have in our little township. I authored a series of "Big Box STore" ordinances that basically limit the sizes of any commercial or industrial building to 35000 square feet and less than 10 feet height interior. We have a rural character and weve made speacial concerns re store sizes and lighting. Even though our state MPC (muni planning Codes) require us to develop spaces for each type of land use.

We even require the "houses of worship" to conform to the zoning requirements becasue they , if larger, interfere with others right to property enjoyment. We had one test of our church size rule by some outfit that wanted to construct some "crystal Cathedral" monstrosity in the country. This was defeated because we couldnt guarantee the fire safety and the insurance institute wouldnt cover the building.

THeres many ways to skin a grizzly bear without starting on a live one .

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:

Thomas you hope the case is over?

How about the people that will have to crawl over park cars to get to their homes?

How about thay do the same thing that I do
and everyone else does: park in their own driveways
or find parking wherever thay can.

I don 't own the street in front of MY house, either.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Thomas this is kind of like stating no problem in allowing Wal-Mart to build a store with zero parking as we will then control the situation that result with parking tickets.

No, because the pastor didn't build a store, or a church. He built a home and invited friends into it. To have your friends come over is a plainly legitimate residential use of your home, whatever you're having them over for. Hugh Hefner has the right to invite 15 playgirls and have an orgy with them every week. Janet Soccermom has the right to invite the team and their parents after each game on Saturday. Pastor Jones has exactly the same right to invite 15 community members and pray. Having guests frequently are normal residential use of your home, whatever it is that you do in there.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

BillRM wrote:
Thomas this is kind of like stating no problem in allowing Wal-Mart to build a store with zero parking as we will then control the situation that result with parking tickets.

No, because the pastor didn't build a store, or a church. He built a home and invited friends into it. Inviting friends into your home is a plainly legitimate use of a residential house, whatever purpose you're using it for. Hugh Hefner has the right to invite 15 playgirls and have an orgy with them every week. Janet Soccermom has the right to invite the team and their parents after each game on Saturday. Pastor Jones has exactly the same right to invite 15 community members and pray. Regular visits are normal residential use of your home, whatever it is that you do in there.

What if you are essentially running a business out of your home, without a license?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Nobody is claiming that this is what he was doing.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Nobody is claiming that this is what he was doing.

Really? The city was originally claiming exactly that; just substitute the word 'ministry' for 'business.'

And, let us examine a theoretical case where someone was in fact doing exactly that. Wouldn't you agree that the city has both the right and responsibility to regulate said behavior?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really? The city was originally claiming exactly that; just substitute the word 'ministry' for 'business.'

which i believe is why the county official asked the questions they did.

it would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if the weekly meetings were being held by people who had different beliefs; maybe something like the Temple of Dionysus.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

... and they dropped their claim when they discovered their error. But let me answer your question anyway.

1) I wouldn't object to the business if it didn't require the owner to use his house in a way an ordinary resident couldn't. To take an easy case, there's a chance I might be working from home on software projects sometime later this year. I would most certainly object if my city's zoning board caused me any trouble for this -- because sitting on the computer and communicating over the internet falls plainly within the normal residential use of my home. Or, for an example closer to this case: if a soccer mom can invite her daughter's soccer team for lemonade after the game every Saturday, the business man can invite 15 associates for a meeting every Saturday. These things do not rise to the level of requiring the zoning board's attention.

2) Whatever the boundaries of permissible business use -- and I agree there have to be some boundries to the use of your home, for any purpose -- the basis for drawing the boundaries cannot interfere with the owner's fundamental rights. Zoning laws cannot permit or prohibit business meetings based on whether the persons holding the meetings are Black or White, male or female, Republicans or Democrats, American-born or foreign-born --- or religious or secular.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if the weekly meetings were being held by people who had different beliefs; maybe something like the Temple of Dionysus.

As far as I am concerned, my response would be identical. If you are implying that I'm a Christian stooge, you haven't read my posts in the religion threads. I kind of resent that.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If you are implying that I'm a Christian stooge, you haven't read my posts in the religion threads. I kind of resent that.

naw, you are taking my comments all wrong. it's not about you, it's about them. Wink

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Nobody is claiming that this is what he was doing.

Really? The city was originally claiming exactly that; just substitute the word 'ministry' for 'business.'

And, let us examine a theoretical case where someone was in fact doing exactly that.
Wouldn't you agree that the city has
both the right and responsibility to regulate said behavior?
Cycloptichorn

For MY part,
as a lover of liberty, I desire to CHALLENGE the concept
that it has either the right, and certainly not any responsibility
to regulate any such behavior.

David

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This is basically moot now as San Diego has backed down and apologized. But I disagree with you. Though the government has in the past regulated constitutional activities, they have only done so when they can show that there is an inherent public safety issue. (as with some types of guns). The licenses issued are there to protect public safety (ie, no felons, no mental illness). I'm sure the Govt has overstepped its bounds in some cases and regulated something they shouldn't have. Depending on the SCOTUS at the time of any one ruling you will find differences of opinion. The liberal view that the constitution is not Static but free to be "reinterpreted" at any time in any way depending on the social "movements" of the time. Or the conservative view that the constitution is static and any changes should go through the constitutionally determined process of addition or repeal of amendments.

You state that "When your actions start to inconvenience those around you, the Law comes into play". I have found NO where in the constitution where the rights exhibited to one individual must be curtailed because of an "inconvenience" to another. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE INCONVENIENCED OR EVEN OFFENDED FOR THAT MATTER.

As to your points about Parking, I addressed this clearly in my post.

"Unless there is a law on the books stating the parking in the neighborhood is strictly for people living in the neighborhood then I don't see how the parking issue is relevant"
and
"Unless the parking is clearly a cause of concern for public safety the government should have no say in the matter. "

The parking was not the issue in this case but by the counties own admission and now apology that this was a religious issue.

You have the right to your view that the constitution protects a persons right not to be offended more than it protects the right of the person to offend. I simply disagree.

1 Reply

@TexazEric,

TexazEric wrote:

This is basically moot now as San Diego has backed down and apologized. But I disagree with you. Though the government has in the past regulated constitutional activities, they have only done so when they can show that there is an inherent public safety issue. (as with some types of guns). The licenses issued are there to protect public safety (ie, no felons, no mental illness). I'm sure the Govt has overstepped its bounds in some cases and regulated something they shouldn't have. Depending on the SCOTUS at the time of any one ruling you will find differences of opinion. The liberal view that the constitution is not Static but free to be "reinterpreted" at any time in any way depending on the social "movements" of the time. Or the conservative view that the constitution is static and any changes should go through the constitutionally determined process of addition or repeal of amendments.

You state that "When your actions start to inconvenience those around you, the Law comes into play". I have found NO where in the constitution where the rights exhibited to one individual must be curtailed because of an "inconvenience" to another. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE INCONVENIENCED OR EVEN OFFENDED FOR THAT MATTER.

As to your points about Parking, I addressed this clearly in my post.

"Unless there is a law on the books stating the parking in the neighborhood is strictly for people living in the neighborhood then I don't see how the parking issue is relevant"
and
"Unless the parking is clearly a cause of concern for public safety the government should have no say in the matter. "

The parking was not the issue in this case but by the counties own admission and now apology that this was a religious issue.

You have the right to your view that the constitution protects a persons right not to be offended more than it protects the right of the person to offend. I simply disagree.

I said nothing of 'offended' whatsoever, so you shouldn't suggest that I did. However, Inconvenience is a valid reason for the state to enforce laws. And I do not believe the Constitution grants citizens the right to ignore duly enacted laws which do not contradict Constitutional rights.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Obviously since this has now been settled the point is moot. The county has withdrawn the complaint and has apologized. The "police powers" you speak of in my opinion are trumped by the constitution. We do not live in a police state. The constitution was designed to protect us from an over reaching state. It limits the state, or as our Dear Leader Obama says, the constitution is a "constraint".
Apparently you did not read my post clearly. I clearly addressed the issue of Parking. Please reread my post.

But you are WRONG that this is not about religion. As my post says the county made this a religious issue by issuing a cease and desist order for a "religious assembly" They did not make this about parking. If they had just made it about parking I would have agreed. The solution dealt with parking issues, not as a point of law but as a convenience to the neighbors.
You are completely wrong about the public nuisance unless the parking issue is what you mean. As I state if the law is that parking must be regulated then I agree, but the county did not approach from that angle.
If you read the issue the people were questioned by government officials asking if they said "Amen" or "Praise the Lord" after replying yes they were told that they were having a religious assembly and must cease or be fined.

If they had not cited it as a being an issue of religious assembly, but simply advised that the parking was an issue then I think they would have had a better argument. But they didn't.
Every week in my parents neighborhood, two churches fill up their parking lots and every inch of street parking for blocks. They have that right, because they do not block the flow of traffic. Though it is a huge inconvenience when I need to park in the street when visiting them.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What if you are essentially running a business out of your home, without a license?

That could be a non conforming use that is allowed or not , depends on whether home enterprise is discouraged. If theres no zoning mention of it anywhere, then its always assumed to be allowed (obviously within reasons of health and safety)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

THeres many ways to skin a grizzly bear without starting on a live one .

I am reminded of the scene from the Jeremiah Johnson movie, in which Will Geer asks Robert Redford if he can skin a grizzly bear. Redford allows as how he reckons he can. The action moves on, and the Will Geer character goes off into the woods, while Redford potters about the cabin. Then suddenly you hear a roar, and Geer comes hightailin' it into the cabin with a bear hot on his back, and out the other side. He then turns around and shouts: "Well, you skin that one, and i'll go get another."

0 Replies

@TexazEric,

Why, then, are we still beating this dead horse now that the case "has now been settled"?

2 Replies

San Diego tries to ban Christianity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know