Gilbert Bans People From Meeting in Their Homes for Religious Reasons? (lawyers, professionals)

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by zox

It is nice to see the Gilbert City Council is addressing this issue and asking that it not be enforced. But one has to wonder if this law would be addressed if it wasn't publicized. It's a little scary to think that such a law could even exist in the first place. I've never been okay with the idea of hoping you don't get busted for engaging in an illegal activity. This law should be repealed as it violates a person's first amendment rights aside from the idea that it is utterly ridiculous.

A person has no first amendment right to operate a church in a residential zoning area where such activity is prohibited. The zoning reg appears vague and staff clearly misinterpreted its intent. But the city is entirely within its rights to prohibit non-residential uses, including churches, in residential zones.

[zox]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

A person has no first amendment right to operate a church in a residential zoning area where such activity is prohibited. The zoning reg appears vague and staff clearly misinterpreted its intent. But the city is entirely within its rights to prohibit non-residential uses, including churches, in residential zones.

A person has a first ammendment right to worship in his or her home. A city cannot have a law that bans people from having a potluck in which people discuss their faith. I'm not going to judge how something was interpreted or intended. The only fact is what was written

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by zox

A person has a first ammendment right to worship in his or her home. A city cannot have a law that bans people from having a potluck in which people discuss their faith. I'm not going to judge how something was interpreted or intended. The only fact is what was written

Well potlucks are not the issue here. No one was stopped from hold a potluck and discussing religion. Courts have ruled that cities may prohibit churches from meeting in residences.

International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of Chicago Heights, No. 96 C 4183, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11125 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 1996). Church was denied use of a former grocery store because it was not a commercial establishment that would generate tax revenue. The Court finding that the zoning ordinance placed no substantial burden on the church stated, "mere inconvenience and economic expenditure do not rise to the level of a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the United States Constitution."; Cornerstone Bible Church v. City of Hastings, 948 F.2d 464 (8th Cir. 1991). An ordinance that excludes churches from central commercial and industrial areas can be valid time, place, and manner restrictions.; Christian Gospel Church, Inc., v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., 896 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 999 (1991). (upholding the city denial of a special use permit for residential dwelling in an area zoned for single-family dwellings. The court found the burden to be minimal on the small church of 50 people as compared with a strong governmental interest in maintaining the quality of the neighborhood.)

[Ritchie_az]

"The court found the burden to be minimal on the small church of 50 people as compared with a strong governmental interest in maintaining the quality of the neighborhood."

That's actually quite frightening. I'd be interested if the Supreme Court has ever said anything about cases like this.

[azriverfan.]

What about the Law of Common Sense. I think anyone with half a brain can distinguish between a guy trying to throw up the Holy Bob Peterson's Church and a guy having people over for a Bible study. The question people have to ask is why was such a law written to ecompass more than the con artists who tries to run churches from their homes and avoid zoning laws? I don't think it's a coincidence the law was written the way it was which was to include small gatherings and groups. Why does there need to be a law that is devoid of common sense and punishes any religious activity that includes more than one person. This was not an accident. The Mormon city council tried to push a law like this that would curtail the activity on non-Mormon faiths in the city. They had to get called out for this law to be addressed. It's just more proof that Gilbert is a Mormon town regardless of how big it gets. Look, we get that this guy was wrong to put a church up in his home. Let's look past that since we are all in agreement that he was wrong. The bigger issue is the law itself...namely that it's a completely assinine one

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

What about the Law of Common Sense. I think anyone with half a brain can distinguish between a guy trying to throw up the Holy Bob Peterson's Church and a guy having people over for a Bible study. The question people have to ask is why was such a law written to ecompass more than the con artists who tries to run churches from their homes and avoid zoning laws? I don't think it's a coincidence the law was written the way it was which was to include small gatherings and groups. Why does there need to be a law that is devoid of common sense and punishes any religious activity that includes more than one person. This was not an accident. The Mormon city council tried to push a law like this that would curtail the activity on non-Mormon faiths in the city. They had to get called out for this law to be addressed. It's just more proof that Gilbert is a Mormon town regardless of how big it gets.

A little anti-Mormon are we? Do you have some evidence of intent to discriminate or is this just a bias of yours?

[zox]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Well potlucks are not the issue here. No one was stopped from hold a potluck and discussing religion. Courts have ruled that cities may prohibit churches from meeting in residences.

You are failing to understand why we are discussing this issue. We recognize the pastor was violating zoning laws and it's obvious he was attempting to start a church. However, the city zoning code states that churches may not have meetings of any size at home. That would include potluck dinners, and three person leadership meetings. It doesn't matter whether a potluck has come under enforcement of the zoning code. It only matter the zoning code is so loosely written that it encompasses religious meetings of any size. Fortunately, the Gilbert city council agrees with us and recognize that it needs to be rewritten thus the reason the council specifically asked that it not be enforced with regard to other type of meetings.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

A little anti-Mormon are we? Do you have some evidence of intent to discriminate or is this just a bias of yours?

Likewise, are you pro-Mormon? I like how you are conveniently ignoring the fact the law includes meetings of any size. There have been protests and appeals to the zoning board regarding this law that have been rejected. Nice of you to address that!

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by zox

You are failing to understand why we are discussing this issue. We recognize the pastor was violating zoning laws and it's obvious he was attempting to start a church. However, the city zoning code states that churches may not have meetings of any size at home. That would include potluck dinners, and three person leadership meetings. It doesn't matter whether a potluck has come under enforcement of the zoning code. It only matter the zoning code is so loosely written that it encompasses religious meetings of any size. Fortunately, the Gilbert city council agrees with us and recognize that it needs to be rewritten thus the reason the council specifically asked that it not be enforced with regard to other type of meetings.

No, I'm not. You are working yourself into a lather over a misplaced and irrational sense of victimization.

[zox]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

No I'm not. You are working yourself into a lather over a misplaced sense of victimization.

I would prefer we leave the psychoanalyzing to the medical professionals. I'm more interested in discussing the facts. The fact is the zoning code encompasses religious meetings of any size. Do you dispute that fact?