quote Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: I don't understand your question. I was speaking hypothetically, of what I think would be a more fair guideline.

My questrion is balejumper's question. Did it ever say anywhere what the complaint was? Was it cars or did we just assume it?

the speculation is endlessless, eh?

I suppose that is why this thread drags on......

you can infer all you want - the fact is - to many people piled into a residential area, and someone called the cops.
whether it was because they didnt like the family, didnt like all the cars, or didnt like what they were doing over there - doesnt matter. the local municipality has made everything clear on what can and cannot be done.
of course one side will make it sound like everyone was angels, and all the nieghbors love me, and there were no parking issues.
this is clearly not true if the authourities were called.

have your bible study in a church where it belongs. it already exists, and has the facilities to handle everyone.
but, that is not really what these "bible studies" are, is it? maybe someone can fess up to what these "bible studies" actually are. one has to wonder what the actual intentions of the Fromms actually is? has a slight "cult" smell to it.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the local municipality has made everything clear on what can and cannot be done. have your bible study in a church where it belongs. it already exists, and has the facilities to handle everyone. .

And the municipality is wrong, 3 people cannot gather? This is America.
I can't believe people in this thread made up reasons to agree with the municipality.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: And the municipality is wrong, 3 people cannot gather? This is America. I can't believe people in this thread made up reasons to agree with the municipality.

I agree 3 is a bit restrictive.
but - this wasnt THREE, was it? is was 10x that, wasn't it?

tho, I am curious as to why the municipality got it tied down so low to 3? I suspect there was some SERIOUS abuse of "freedom" in order for such a tight restriction to have been created. which is how it always happens. some self important people decide to abuse freedoms, and end up making everyone else rally up and create laws to prevent such abuse in the future.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I agree 3 is a bit restrictive. but - this wasnt THREE, was it? is was 10x that, wasn't it? tho, I am curious as to why the municipality got it tied down so low to 3? I suspect there was some SERIOUS abuse of "freedom" in order for such a tight restriction to have been created. which is how it always happens. some self important people decide to abuse freedoms, and end up making everyone else rally up and create laws to prevent such abuse in the future.

Why can't I have 30 people over to my house? For about the 10th time I am still asking where you see that cars were blocking streets? Made it up right?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Why can't I have 30 people over to my house? For about the 10th time I am still asking where you see that cars were blocking streets? Made it up right?

for a special event - sure - but twice a week is being selfish. especially on a weeknight.
there are plenty of places you can do this kind of thing, without imposing yourself upon the entire neighborhood.
the classic place for this would be an actual church - which exist all over the place.

where do I see cars blocking the streets? any residential area where more than 5 people try and go to one home.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: where do I see cars blocking the streets? any residential area where more than 5 people try and go to one home.

Yeah, assumed.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Yeah, assumed.

well, the fact that someone had to call the city about makes it pretty clear. they were a problem. can only guess what that is.
yes - we can only assume it is the parking - maybe it is something more. in fact, it probably is something more. they are likely loud. they likely litter. they likely wreck other peoples yards. and, have likely done property damage. but, we are being generous in saying they are only clogging the streets.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, the fact that someone had to call the city about makes it pretty clear. they were a problem. can only guess what that is. yes - we can only assume it is the parking - maybe it is something more. in fact, it probably is something more. they are likely loud. they likely litter. they likely wreck other peoples yards. and, have likely done property damage. but, we are being generous in saying they are only clogging the streets.

moo

I have been watching in amazement as this thread continues. There are very little facts available, but a lot of assumptions. Here is what I could dig up that I would consider facts:

- The Fromms are meeting bi-weekly in their home for bible study. These are regular meetings occurring on Wednesday and Sunday. Numerous articles cite that approximately 20 people show up on Wednesday, and 50 on Sunday.

- San Juan Capistrano has a Municiple Code. This code includes regulations for zoning in different areas of the city. Section 9-3.301 of the code describes the regulations and standards for a residential district.

- The City of San Juan Capistrano's code enforcement department has determined that the regular meetings at the Fromm residence fall under the category of "Religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations (nonprofit)" as identified in the cities municipal code in Section 9-3.301.

- Because of the determination of the code enforcement department, the Fromms are required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit as descibed in Section 9-2.317 of the cities municipal code.

- From the article Capistrano Couple in Legal Battle for Hosting Bible Study in Home in The Capistrano Dispatch from September 20, "San Juan Capistrano City Attorney Omar Sandoval said the city had not yet been served with a copy of the legal action, so he could not comment."

- Also from the same article as above in The Capistrano Dispatch, "Capistrano’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning officers only respond to complaints."

- From a later article in The Capistrano Dispatch on September 22, Pay to Pray?

quote “How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm said. “I should be able to be hospitable in my home.” The city countered with a statement that says Bible studies are not prohibited in homes, and that the Fromms attract as many as 50 people to their home on Sunday mornings. That, the city says, makes the house a “public gathering place.” Code enforcement officers responded to a neighbor’s complaint.

Note that in the above quote from the article in The Capistrano Dispatch, the city statement is not a direct quote. As of this point, we have yet to see a quoted statement from the city. Only speculation. The city could have very well told them that holding "religious services" in their home is not permitted without first obatining the appropriate permit.

Many of the articles online about this topic indicate that approximately 20 people are showing up on Wednesday, and as many as 50 on Sunday. According to the second article from The Capistrano Dispatch, the Sunday "Bible Study" is led by Pastor Chuck Smith Jr. If you have the time, google Chuck Smith Jr., although not relevant to the discussion, he appears to have an interesting history and relationship with his father, Pastor Chuck Smith Sr.

So based on all the information available, it looks like this started after the complaint from at least one of the Fromms neighbors. I must say that I am not surprised that someone would complain. 50 people showing up on my culdesack every Sunday morning would cause quite a ruckus. If I was their neighbor, I might be so inclined to complain as well. I chose not to live next to a church for a reason, and in my opinion, regular meetings ran by a pastor would constitue a religious service. It looks like the enforcers of the zoning regulations of the City of San Juan Capistrano feels the same way.

The Fromms were asked to apply for a Conditional Use Permit from the city if they wanted to continue to hold their meetings. Item (a) of Section 9-2.317 of the municipal code give the purpose and intent for the permit. Please note that application for the permit does not mean that it will be approved.

quote Purpose and intent. Chapter 3 (Zoning Districts and Standards) of this title contains listings of land uses that are permitted within the various zoning districts upon approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Such uses require approval of a CUP for their establishment because, although such uses may be deemed consistent with the purpose and intent of the district, they typically have characteristics that require special regulation in order to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Therefore, each such proposed conditional use shall be reviewed individually to determine whether the subject land use should be permitted at the particular location proposed and what special conditions should be placed on the establishment and operation of an approved conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process is intended to provide an opportunity for public review and evaluation of site-specific requirements and characteristics; to provide adequate mitigation of any potentially adverse impacts; and to ensure that all site development regulations and performance standards are provided in accordance with this Land Use Code. In addition, the conditional use permit provides a means of monitoring compliance with conditions of operation that may be applied to the use in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure compliance with the General Plan.

As a Christian, I do not see this as a matter of Religious Freedom, or Religious Persecution. It is nothing more than a matter of zoning in a residential area. Every city or incorporated area in the country has similar zoning regulations. This is nothing out of the ordinary. When an area is developed, it is designed to accomodate the activity that will occur in the area. In a residential area, the zoning simply makes sure that the only thing happening in the structures of the area is residency. It ensures me, as a homeowner, that my neighbor will not open a business, host regular religious services, etc. It does not disallow individuals from having parties, poker games, dinners, or social functions in their homes on holidays.

I hope that the city is able to stand their ground in this case. If not, I feel for the Fromms neighbors who object to the meetings. Zoning laws exist to protect the rights of others in the area, and assure that the area is capable of supporting the actions occuring on the property. If you take a look at the Purpose and Intent of the Conditional Use Permit quoted above, that is clear. Unfortunately, with the national attention this case is getting, and the momentum it is gaining by people using it to further their political agenda, I fear that the city will ultimately end up losing this battle. With city budgets running in the red all over the country, I doubt that San Juan Capistrano has the financial capability to fight this one to the end. With the Fromms legal defense team being provided for at no cost from the Pacific Justice Institue who from their website states

quote Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need. "Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless individuals, families and churches...without charge."

the city is in for a hard fight.

I always gasp in amazement when people use Christianity for the basis of their argument in cases such as this. It immediately gets people on the bandwagon for their cause because if you don't jump on, you must hate Jesus. This has become a more common tactic lately, due to the fact that it also conincides with the political views of many. I hate to say it, and I am sure that some will argue against me, but if it were a groups of people from a different denomination, let's say Muslim, holding these regular meetings out of their home, I am certain that the people arguing for the "Religious Freedom of the Fromms" would be singing a different tune.

quote Originally posted by KidO: I have been watching in amazement as this thread continues. There are very little facts available, but a lot of assumptions. As a Christian, I do not see this as a matter of Religious Freedom, or Religious Persecution. It is nothing more than a matter of zoning in a residential area. Every city or incorporated area in the country has similar zoning regulations. This is nothing out of the ordinary. When an area is developed, it is designed to accomodate the activity that will occur in the area..

I think we cannot honestly make any calls on this individual case as there is not enough data available, too many gaps.
My complaint still stands that if the law says 3 people it is uncalled for and for no legitimate reason, this infringes on rights of any citizen no matter their religion, ethnicity, etc.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: tho, I am curious as to why the municipality got it tied down so low to 3? I suspect there was some SERIOUS abuse of "freedom" in order for such a tight restriction to have been created. which is how it always happens. some self important people decide to abuse freedoms, and end up making everyone else rally up and create laws to prevent such abuse in the future.

Years ago I read a book on the Hells Angels. Many many years ago, I think it was around high school.

There was mention of places making laws against gatherings of more than 3 people without a permit because of obvious reasons. If it's the same law it was made this way to try and slow the Motorcycle Gangs destruction.

Sounds similar to me. If it is it sure is humorous to me for a group following God to be breaking a law created for the followers of Satan (in name if nothing else.)

Brad

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I think we cannot honestly make any calls on this individual case as there is not enough data available, too many gaps. My complaint still stands that if the law says 3 people it is uncalled for and for no legitimate reason, this infringes on rights of any citizen no matter their religion, ethnicity, etc.

I have found no legitimate legal reference from either party in this litigation referencing a law about 3 people. It seems that everyone grabbed hold of what I would consider a tounge-in-cheek statement made by Doug85GT halfway down page 2 of this thread. Here it is:

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I guess they must ban Avon, Amway, D&D, Fantasy Football Leagues, Car Clubs, "King of the Hill" front lawn gatherings, Super Bowl Parties, 4th of July BBQs, Cinco De Mayo celebrations and anything else that involves "regular gatherings of more than three people". So much for the right to peaceably assemble.

That is why I took the time to cite the actual ordinance in question. Multiple media sources cite that the Fromms are hosting approximately 20 people on Wednesday and 50 people on Sunday at their homes. The Fromms themselves have stated that a pastor leads the Sunday meetings. The person(s) responsible for enforcing the zoning ordinances in the city have determined that the Fromms are using their home as a church, making them subject to the zoning requirements for such a facility.

The only disagreement that I see is the definition of "church". If it were my call, I would say that what they are doing (50 people regularly showing up, led by a pastor) constitutes a religious service. Religious services are typically held in a church, or other appropriate meeting place. The city ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for a church in a Residential Zone.

A neighbor complained, but the reason for the complaint is irrelevant. The proper city authority did an investigation and determined that the Fromms were using their residence as a church. Maybe the neighbor complained because of parking, maybe it was noise, maybe he is just a jerk. It does not make a difference. The city appropriately handled this in accordance to their zoning regulations after deciding that regularly scheduled "Bible Study" led by a pastor for a large group is church. If it is found that these "Bible Study" meetings are not church services, is it OK that 200 people start to show up at the Fromm residence?

If the city can afford to fight it, a case like this could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States just to define the definition of church. If the Fromms win the case, I will no longer be able to say "I belong to the Catholic Church, and I go to mass at All Saints" because I would be using one of the accepted definitions of church incorrectly.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the speculation is endlessless, eh? I suppose that is why this thread drags on...... have your bible study in a church where it belongs. but, that is not really what these "bible studies" are, is it? maybe someone can fess up to what these "bible studies" actually are. one has to wonder what the actual intentions of the Fromms actually is? has a slight "cult" smell to it.

The thread is GOING on because, regardless of the speculation of the facts, it brings up some interesting issues to discuss.


Wow. Have your Bible study in a church, WHERE IT BELONGS. Holy cow. You are THAT anti-American constitutional principles on freedom that now YOU get to decide WHERE people can study their Bibles with others, instead of allowing peole the freedom to decide.

Why don't you tell us what OTHER things should ONLY be allowed in designated areas that YOU find personally acceptable? And then tell us how that belief system fits in with your self proclaimed progressive, liberal mind set. You know. The mind set where new ideas and new trends are born. So someone doesn't do things the "old, conservative" way, and decides the Bible can be studied outside the confines of a church (a new, progressive, liberal way) and your declaration is essentially "get back in the church where you belong."

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: The thread is GOING on because, regardless of the speculation of the facts, it brings up some interesting issues to discuss. Wow. Have your Bible study in a church, WHERE IT BELONGS. Holy cow. You are THAT anti-American constitutional principles on freedom that now YOU get to decide WHERE people can study their Bibles with others, instead of allowing peole the freedom to decide. Why don't you tell us what OTHER things should ONLY be allowed in designated areas that YOU find personally acceptable? And then tell us how that belief system fits in with your self proclaimed progressive, liberal mind set. You know. The mind set where new ideas and new trends are born. So someone doesn't do things the "old, conservative" way, and decides the Bible can be studied outside the confines of a church (a new, progressive, liberal way) and your declaration is essentially "get back in the church where you belong."

yup - just as I tought - it IS a cult
no self respecting church would have them

how's about they do it online? maybe in a chat room.....
but - to tough to get the right chant going, and, of course, the sacrafice

"bible study" my foot. there is evil brewing at the Fromm's

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yup - just as I tought - it IS a cult no self respecting church would have them how's about they do it online? maybe in a chat room..... but - to tough to get the right chant going, and, of course, the sacrafice "bible study" my foot. there is evil brewing at the Fromm's

quote Originally posted by KidO: If it is found that these "Bible Study" meetings are not church services, is it OK that 200 people start to show up at the Fromm residence?

Personally since it is a 4700 square foot home, if they were not loud or blocking streets I might be fine with it.

But I do see how it seems excessive. I mainly was keeping on to point out that many generalizations and assumptions were being made in this thread that restricted peoples rights without facts to back up the decisions. If the 3 people rule was something not of fact either, then I stand by my original take:

quote Originally posted by 2.5: We are just assuming the problem is parking. If that is so they should use some common sense and carpool, or use a home of one of the people who live rural. There really is no data in this story stating why is there? We are just guessing.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Personally since it is a 4700 square foot home, if they were not loud or blocking streets I might be fine with it. But I do see how it seems excessive. I mainly was keeping on to point out that many generalizations and assumptions were being made in this thread that restricted peoples rights without facts to back up the decisions. If the 3 people rule was something not of fact either, then I stand by my original take:

Hey, no problem. I just wanted to point out the standing zoning regulations because this thread was all over the place with speculation. I also have my opinion, but it was based on the regulations. Like I said, the only thing that seems up for debate in this case is "what constitues a church?" If it is found that the Fromms are using their home as a church, which I believe that they are, then they need to follow the regulations set forth in the zoning law.

If a court finds that the Fromms are right and the zoning regulations are the problem, this creates a slippery slope, opening the door to allow "Bible Study" in any home without consideration for the nieghbors or zoning. If that happens, what is to stop people from hosting "Bible Study" with a much larger congregation. Congregations which in the past had to meet in a church, or other appropriate venue.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: We are just assuming the problem is parking. If that is so they should use some common sense and carpool, or use a home of one of the people who live rural. There really is no data in this story stating why is there? We are just guessing.

In my post, I tried to make sure that I didn't reference parking as an issue. The story as printed in the local online publication does clearly cite a reason though. The city reacted on a complaint and their determiniation was the Fromms were using their home as a church, which according to city zoning regulations requires the Fromms to apply for a permit. A permit that may or not be approved. Unfortunately, the conservative media grabbed hold of this story and turned it into a fight for religious freedom. A case of politics against Christianity. It's a great and age old tactic, because a "good" Christian isn't going to side against Jesus.

quote Originally posted by KidO: That is why I took the time to cite the actual ordinance in question. Multiple media sources cite that the Fromms are hosting approximately 20 people on Wednesday and 50 people on Sunday at their homes. The Fromms themselves have stated that a pastor leads the Sunday meetings. The person(s) responsible for enforcing the zoning ordinances in the city have determined that the Fromms are using their home as a church, making them subject to the zoning requirements for such a facility. The only disagreement that I see is the definition of "church". If it were my call, I would say that what they are doing (50 people regularly showing up, led by a pastor) constitutes a religious service. Religious services are typically held in a church, or other appropriate meeting place. The city ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for a church in a Residential Zone. A neighbor complained, but the reason for the complaint is irrelevant. The proper city authority did an investigation and determined that the Fromms were using their residence as a church. Maybe the neighbor complained because of parking, maybe it was noise, maybe he is just a jerk. It does not make a difference. The city appropriately handled this in accordance to their zoning regulations after deciding that regularly scheduled "Bible Study" led by a pastor for a large group is church. If it is found that these "Bible Study" meetings are not church services, is it OK that 200 people start to show up at the Fromm residence? If the city can afford to fight it, a case like this could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States just to define the definition of church. If the Fromms win the case, I will no longer be able to say "I belong to the Catholic Church, and I go to mass at All Saints" because I would be using one of the accepted definitions of church incorrectly.

According to the link you posted of the law, it clearly states that the law applies to religious organizations. Organization are legal personalities such as churches, non-profits and fraternal orders. Sound familiar? It should since this is what it says in the law:

quote Religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations (nonprofit)

The note from the same page:

quote Includes churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations.

Every organization listed is a legal personality that files for their tax exempt status and is legally independent from its members.

The Fromms are not running a church nor any other organization. Organizing a Bible study is not running a religious organization any more than throwing a party is running a bar. The local government is twisting the law to extort money from them. If the locals want to cite them for parking or noise, then do it. But IMO they have no way basis to claim the Fromms are running a religious organizations as defined in current law.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Every organization listed is a legal personality that files for their tax exempt status and is legally independent from its members. The Fromms are not running a church nor any other organization. Organizing a Bible study is not running a religious organization any more than throwing a party is running a bar. The local government is twisting the law to extort money from them. If the locals want to cite them for parking or noise, then do it. But IMO they have no way basis to claim the Fromms are running a religious organizations as defined in current law.

Take a look at this link from the legalzoom website:

What constitues a church under federal laws?

You are right in that the IRS sets guidelines for who is allowed to apply of 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Whether or not they (the Fromms) have applied for this status or not does not change what they are doing. If you don't want to read the link in its entirety, here is how the IRS defines as a Religious Organization:

quote The IRS offers the following with regard to religious organizations, "Religious organizations that are not churches typically include nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study or advancement of religion."

The site uses the Young Life Ministries as an example.

If this goes to court and they end up changing the legal definition of a church or religious organization, it could impact other organizations who have already qualified for 501(c)(3) status. It makes no difference whether the Fromms have it or not. The legal definition already exists.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Yeah, assumed.

I mentioned it as a possibility as to a city motive. Reality is all we have seen is article spin from the Fromms lawyer. I have yet to see anything released from the city. WD did do a search with Google maps and it shows parking again "could" have been the original complaint. The city being quiet on the issue is however disheartening and not making them look good. All we really know is that atleast 1 neighbor complained, but we don't know the specific complaint. Truthfully we don't even know that the Bible Study was a quiet affair. We know that the Fromms have said it was, but like all stories, there are two sides and one side of this story is choosing to keep rather tight lipped. Honestly, I'd really like to see a statement from the city explaining what complaint was given. Until then I will continue to reserve judgement, but I refuse to take everything the Fromms lawyer has spun as unabashed truth.

quote Originally posted by Khw: I mentioned it as a possibility as to a city motive. Reality is all we have seen is article spin from the Fromms lawyer. I have yet to see anything released from the city. WD did do a search with Google maps and it shows parking again "could" have been the original complaint. The city being quiet on the issue is however disheartening and not making them look good. All we really know is that atleast 1 neighbor complained, but we don't know the specific complaint. Truthfully we don't even know that the Bible Study was a quiet affair. We know that the Fromms have said it was, but like all stories, there are two sides and one side of this story is choosing to keep rather tight lipped. Honestly, I'd really like to see a statement from the city explaining what complaint was given. Until then I will continue to reserve judgement, but I refuse to take everything the Fromms lawyer has spun as unabashed truth.

I highly doubt that any official comment will be made from the city. When the legal system is invoked, it is typical that the city will not comment. There is too much risk that an individual representative will make an incorrect statement.

GET OVER IT. the laws were made because idiots came up with reasons to make them.
RENT if the venue is to little.
This is NOT a case of discrimination. This is a case of inconcideration.

quote Originally posted by KidO: Take a look at this link from the legalzoom website: What constitues a church under federal laws? You are right in that the IRS sets guidelines for who is allowed to apply of 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Whether or not they (the Fromms) have applied for this status or not does not change what they are doing. If you don't want to read the link in its entirety, here is how the IRS defines as a Religious Organization:

I think you missed a very important word in your quote:

quote The IRS offers the following with regard to religious organizations, "Religious organizations that are not churches typically include nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study or advancement of religion."

According to the IRS, they are not a church. The statement is inclusive but not definitive. In other words, those are possible examples of "religious organization" activities, but not a definition of a religious organization. In my example of a party vs a bar, alcohol is served, money is often exchanged to buy alcohol at parties, there can be a professional bar tender at a party, there is dance music, there could be a pool table if the home has it. Just about anything that happens at a bar can be done at a party yet throwing a party is not running a bar and does not require a liquor license, business license, permits or the myriad of other requirements that is required to run a bar.

BTW, my Hmong neighbors are having another gathering this weekend. I know they include religious activities as part of their gatherings. Should I call code enforcement on them for running a church or religious organization on my street?

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 09-24-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: According to the IRS, they are not a church. The statement is inclusive but not definitive. In other words, those are possible examples of "religious organization" activities, but not a definition of a religious organization. In my example of a party vs a bar, alcohol is served, money is often exchanged to buy alcohol at parties, there can be a professional bar tender at a party, there is dance music, there could be a pool table if the home has it. Just about anything that happens at a bar can be done at a party yet throwing a party is not running a bar and does not require a liquor license, business license, permits or the myriad of other requirements that is required to run a bar.

According to the IRS they would qualify as a religious organization, which falls under the list of things not allowed in the Fromms residentially zoned district. Go read the whole article on the legalzoom site I linked to earlier, but here is what followed the simple definition I gave earlier that used Young Life as the example.

quote However, in some cases a religious organization may qualify as a church even if it does not appear to be a church in the traditional sense. This is the case with Young Life, a nonprofit organization that the IRS officially recognized as a church following a July 2005 Ruling. Interestingly, Young Life does not have an established place of worship or church building per se, but it does have weekly meetings at specific locations. In the end, although Young Life did not meet all federal criteria for religious entities, the IRS concluded that it did meet a sufficient number of them to qualify as a church. The bottom line is that the IRS has created specific guidelines on churches and other religious entities to determine their tax status. However, it is not a requirement that a church meet all the criteria. Instead, the IRS offers some flexibility, giving various religious institutions the opportunity to qualify for the highly coveted tax exempt status.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: BTW, my Hmong neighbors are having another gathering this weekend. I know they include religious activities as part of their gatherings. Should I call code enforcement on them for running a church or religious organization on my street?

They're your neighbors, and if they are doing something illegal and you want to call the cops, go for it. That is your right.

You just don't get it KidO. They are not an organization. There is no separate "entity" that anyone can point to that is not them as an individual.

Do the Fromms have any protection that being in an organization gives such as liability? No
Is there any paperwork that officially forms this "organization"? No
Is there any flow of moneys into or out of this "organization"? No
Has this "organization" exercised any of its rights as a legal personality such as buy advertisement, own property etc.? No
Does this "organization" even have a name? No

Young Life, the example that you give is most definitely an organization and as such, the above questions can easily be answered. The Fromms Bible study is no such thing.

Individuals can do just about anything that an organization does, but that does not make them an organization. That is what I was pointing out in my party vs bar example which you have ignored twice.

As far as my Hmong neighbors, they are not violating any laws at all.

^^^^^^^^ Totally agree ^^^^^^^^

Whatever you do in this country is fine as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Since these people are not bothering anyone else, this entire discussion is accademic.

Bad laws need to be violated. Slavery, segregation, fairness doctrine, ALL BAD LAWS! And a patriot violates bad law. Because it is the only way sometimes to make a bad law visible.

These people have a right to have their little meeting and this law needs to go.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Whatever you do in this country is fine as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Since these people are not bothering anyone else, this entire discussion is accademic. Bad laws need to be violated. Slavery, segregation, fairness doctrine, ALL BAD LAWS! And a patriot violates bad law. Because it is the only way sometimes to make a bad law visible. These people have a right to have their little meeting and this law needs to go.

It obviously was bothering someone else, hence the complaint.

Toddster, I agree. I am guessing whoever it bothered is just a trouble maker. Some people have nothing better to do than listen to a scanner, go chase ambulances and try o find something to complain about.

quote Originally posted by balejumper: Toddster, I agree. I am guessing whoever it bothered is just a trouble maker. Some people have nothing better to do than listen to a scanner, go chase ambulances and try o find something to complain about.

precisely. None of the neighbors complained. They all seem fine with it. The problem is that there is always one prick out there, you know the type, the loser who thinks everyone owes him something. These people make everyone around them miserable whining about why you don't pay them any respect or attention instead of joining the human race and giving some thought to other people.

The law should not be a weapon for minorities like this to make other people unhappy. But it often is used for that exact purpose.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: precisely. None of the neighbors complained. They all seem fine with it.

You interviewed all of the neighbors?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Whatever you do in this country is fine as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Since these people are not bothering anyone else, this entire discussion is accademic. Bad laws need to be violated. Slavery, segregation, fairness doctrine, ALL BAD LAWS! And a patriot violates bad law. Because it is the only way sometimes to make a bad law visible. These people have a right to have their little meeting and this law needs to go.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. This is exactly why zone laws are in place. I do belive that they do have the right to group up and "talk" as long as we follow the laws, but it goes back to the old saying "just because you can does not mean you should" This is not much diferent than the NYC mosque in pricaple. The mosque at least followed the zone laws but the public does not want it. This case is the opisite. They brake the law and jam up the streets, but people are not protesting in the streets.
BTW, the Bible says we are to follow the laws of man. Why do you think they feel the need to violate zone laws? IF they think they have some case to fight, then they should do so within the laws of man and God. They have the option of gathering somewere else, just do that while they fight in the courts? How far "out of the way" could it be to the nearest legal gathering place anyway?

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: They brake the law and jam up the streets, but people are not protesting in the streets.

Again, I have to say that I never once read anything about them jamming up the streets, parking wasn't the issue here from what I can see.

Never mind.

[This message has been edited by WhiteDevil88 (edited 09-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: You just don't get it KidO. They are not an organization. There is no separate "entity" that anyone can point to that is not them as an individual. Do the Fromms have any protection that being in an organization gives such as liability? No Is there any paperwork that officially forms this "organization"? No Is there any flow of moneys into or out of this "organization"? No Has this "organization" exercised any of its rights as a legal personality such as buy advertisement, own property etc.? No Does this "organization" even have a name? No

You seem to be making these statements as fact. Do you care to share your source? I suspect that you are simply voicing your own assumptions.

So far, the only facts I have seen in the news are the following:

1. Approximately 20 people show up at the Fromms on Wednesday for "Bible Study".
2. Approximately 50 people show up at the Fromms on Sunday for "Bible Study", which is led by a pastor.
3. Someone complained, prompting an investigation by the cities zoning enforcement agency.
4. The city determined that the Fromms would need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit.
5. Obtaining a CUP can be a difficult and expensive endeavor and does not guarantee that the permit will be issued.
6. The Fromms have enlisted the legal counsel of the Pacific Justice Institute to fight this issue with the city.

If you have more information about this, please share.

quote Young Life, the example that you give is most definitely an organization and as such, the above questions can easily be answered. The Fromms Bible study is no such thing.

Again, If you have information from a different source, please share. The information that I referenced from the legalzoom site stated the following in regards to qualifying as a church. I put in bold items that I think are relevant.

quote Qualifying as a Church Some of the confusion over churches arises when the IRS differentiates between religious institutions like churches, and religious organizations. The IRS offers the following with regard to religious organizations, "Religious organizations that are not churches typically include nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, and other entities whose principal purpose is the study or advancement of religion." However, in some cases a religious organization may qualify as a church even if it does not appear to be a church in the traditional sense. This is the case with Young Life, a nonprofit organization that the IRS officially recognized as a church following a July 2005 Ruling. Interestingly, Young Life does not have an established place of worship or church building per se, but it does have weekly meetings at specific locations. In the end, although Young Life did not meet all federal criteria for religious entities, the IRS concluded that it did meet a sufficient number of them to qualify as a church. The bottom line is that the IRS has created specific guidelines on churches and other religious entities to determine their tax status. However, it is not a requirement that a church meet all the criteria. Instead, the IRS offers some flexibility, giving various religious institutions the opportunity to qualify for the highly coveted tax exempt status.

You have already mis-represented the first item in the quote above, focusing on the not a church reference. The Fromms meetings could very well have them considered a religious organization since the reason for their regular meetings is the study of religion. Religious orgranizations were also prohibited from meeting in the residential zone where the Fromms live.

I think the Young Life example is very relevant in this, since like the Fromms, they're situation did not meet all the federal criteria to be a church, but they did meet enough. One of the exapmles given is the weekly meetings at a specific location.

Although the Fromms may not be applying for legal status as a religious entitiy, or tax exemption, they are acting much like a church. They are hosting a congregation of people with regular meetings led by a pastor. If a court determines that these actions do not define a church or religious organization it could create potential issues for other groups that are trying to apply for the legal status.

quote Individuals can do just about anything that an organization does, but that does not make them an organization. That is what I was pointing out in my party vs bar example which you have ignored twice.

If you start to have a regular party 2 times a week,with your paid bartender, money exchanging hands for drinks, as you host 20 to 50 guests you very well might have an issue, if someone chooses to complain. If your guests are showing up regularly to support a cause, or for a specific purpose, they would be an organization. Not saying it doesn't make it not true. The Fromms are not hosting a party. This isn't family or friends coming over for a birthday or Thanksgiving. This is a large group of people meeting on a schedule for religious purposes in a residence. The city has a zoning ordinance that prohibits this.

So back to your opening statement. They are an organization, in that they are a group of persons organized for some end or work. Organized in that they have a regular meeting schedule, location, and leadership. The "entity" that they are gathering together for is Christianity. This starting to sound like church yet?

quote As far as my Hmong neighbors, they are not violating any laws at all.

Then in your case, there is nothing to complain about.

LOL

Your arguments are absurd. You can't even give the name of this "organization" that the Fromms are running. The very first requirement to be a legal personality or "organization" is to have a legal name:

quote A legal person (Latin: persona ficta), (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal name ...

I think this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone proposing the involuntary formation for an organization.

When taxes are filed with the IRS as a religious organization, they do it voluntarily for the tax benefits. They also form an organization for the various other benefits of having an organization. No one is forced to form an organization. In the case of Young Life, they submitted their taxes as a Church to get the benefits. They could easily relinquish that status at any time and pay regular taxes.

You stand common practice and common sense on its head by forcing involuntary formation of an organization.

Where the local government fail is the application of a law mean to apply only to organizations is instead being applied to individuals. Your failure is in the basic definition of an organization.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 09-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: LOL Your arguments are absurd. You can't even give the name of this "organization" that the Fromms are running. The very first requirement to be a legal personality or "organization" is to have a legal name: I think this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone proposing the involuntary formation for an organization. When taxes are filed with the IRS as a religious organization, they do it voluntarily for the tax benefits. They also form an organization for the various other benefits of having an organization. No one is forced to form an organization. In the case of Young Life, they submitted their taxes as a Church to get the benefits. They could easily relinquish that status at any time and pay regular taxes. You stand common practice and common sense on its head by forcing involuntary formation of an organization. Where the local government fail is the application of a law mean to apply only to organizations is instead being applied to individuals. Your failure is in the basic definition of an organization.

I ask again, where are you getting your facts? You can call my argument absurd, you can twist the meaning of my post, but you can't dispute the facts.

Dictionary.com defines organization as:

or·gan·i·za·tion

noun
1. the act or process of organizing.
2. the state or manner of being organized.
3. something that is organized.
4. organic structure; composition: The organization of this painting is quite remarkable.
5. a group of persons organized for some end or work; association: a nonprofit organization.

TheFreeDictionary.com offers the following definition of organization in their legal dictionary:

A generic term for any type of group or association of individuals who are joined together either formally or legally.

The term organization includes a corporation, government, partnership, and any type of civil or political association of people.

and the legal definition of association is defined as follows:

association n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure. An association is not a legally-established corporation or a partnership. To make this distinction the term "unincorporated association" is often used, although technically redundant.

Everything the Fromms are doing fits cleanly within these definitions. You can be pissed off all you want that the city has restrictions about what you can do in your own home, but guess what, they do. In fact, every city and incorporated area in the Country has these types of rules. You can jump up and down all you want claiming that they are infringing on the rights of individuals, but these rules are in place to keep the individual from infringning on the rights of the community as a whole.

Rave all you want, but this isn't about freedom of religion. It's about use of residential property contrary to its zoning restrictions.

An organization has a more specific legal definition than the dictionary definition. That is why it is defined as a legal personality. Since we are talking about a matter of law, the legal definition takes precedence.

Nice try though.

quote Originally posted by KidO: I ask again, where are you getting your facts? You can call my argument absurd, you can twist the meaning of my post, but you can't dispute the facts. Dictionary.com defines organization as: or·gan·i·za·tion noun 1. the act or process of organizing. 2. the state or manner of being organized. 3. something that is organized. 4. organic structure; composition: The organization of this painting is quite remarkable. 5. a group of persons organized for some end or work; association: a nonprofit organization. TheFreeDictionary.com offers the following definition of organization in their legal dictionary: A generic term for any type of group or association of individuals who are joined together either formally or legally. The term organization includes a corporation, government, partnership, and any type of civil or political association of people. and the legal definition of association is defined as follows: association n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure. An association is not a legally-established corporation or a partnership. To make this distinction the term "unincorporated association" is often used, although technically redundant. Everything the Fromms are doing fits cleanly within these definitions. You can be pissed off all you want that the city has restrictions about what you can do in your own home, but guess what, they do. In fact, every city and incorporated area in the Country has these types of rules. You can jump up and down all you want claiming that they are infringing on the rights of individuals, but these rules are in place to keep the individual from infringning on the rights of the community as a whole.