Sixty Days of Jail Time for Backyard Bible Study

So you can have a fifty person house party, but not a fifty person Bible study?? Ridiculous.

They live across the street from a soccer/basketball and park complex. They have 4 acres. Everyone parks on their property. The next door neighbor has huge parties, and people park on the street. But nothing is wrong with that...

Government has NO RIGHT protecting us from ourselves. That is just sickening.

 

For private buildings on private property? Absolutely.

In private buildings on private property, for non-commercial (no money being exchanged) purposes? Absolutely.

No one else is losing any rights. The Bible study is not affecting the neighbors at all. Other than the person dislikes Christianity, and is trying to cause problems.

 

This is exactly why one should employ what I call the "180 degree" policy: Take what you read, hear or see from the media, then turn it around 180 degrees and you might see the truth!! Usually works for me.

BTW, this would also apply to most history and even some theoology books.

EX: If all I were living in some remote foreign country and all I ever knew about the US were from books authored by Soviet era communist party hacks, I'd certainly be glad I didn't live there.

 

You are right FAL. I used "pull the plug" as a figure of speech.

HankD

 

Does everyone get my point made in one of my posts?

We are talking about this because it's a fuzzy case which has more than one dynamic.

Freedom of worship/freedom of peaceful assembly

versus

Legitimate zoning laws.

Because those dynamics intersect in this case it is causing this debate and the one currently going on the WWW which is the desired end in order to advance an agenda by testing the social climate and getting "we the sheeple" tolerant of having our freedoms taken away.

It's not exactly about the surface issue but a means (divide and conquer) to an end.
An end which has a much wider scope.


HankD

 

I don't think that it is anything that sinister.

Salman was told from the beginning that he needed an "A Occupancy" for his church meetings.

He is allowed to construct an "A Occupancy" on his property.

What he did was move his meetings from his house which is not an "A Occupancy" into a building that he built in the back of his house that is still not an "A Occupancy".

Building codes are about safety.

Room sizes for the number of people - the number and placement of exits and windows - ceiling heights - restroom requirements - and so on.

My question is - Why didn't he just build his church building according to building codes?

I doubt that he would be having the problems that he is having if he played it straight.

Within the first minutes of the video he says that when he built his accessory building he told the city that it was a "game room".

Why did he lie?

 

This fight has been going on for years. Can't fight city hall. They will lose in the 9th Circuit Court.

I can't form an opinion without seeing the building permit.

 

Only if you consider that satan uses us unawares to ourselves.

Why does anyone lie?

HankD

 

Seriously, what was the purpose in lying when he applied for his building permit?

The only answer that I can come up with is that it is more expensive to build and "A Occupancy" building than a residential building.

 

Stop right there. We are not talking about a "church." We are talking about friends and family gathering at a home to study the Bible. There is no offering taken. There is no paid staff. It is not open to the public. The place in question is not a "church" in a legal sense of the word.

Yes, a person should be able to have snakes at their home. If they get loose, and escape from that person's property, they are legally liable. But as long as the person has them confined to their property, then it is nobodies business. Several of my neighbors have snakes. My former pastor, who is also a former zoo keeper and biologist, lived in a residential district with dozens of snakes....

A home (we are not talking about a church) should be able to be built however that person wants it built, as long as it does not infringe on neighboring properties. If you want to build your home, on your property, out of sticks and gum wrappers, it is no one else's business but yours...ESPECIALLY in a rural situation such as this one, where the property in question is 4 acres.

Church buildings are already exempt from ADA requirements. Courts have already upheld this. But we are not talking about a church. We are talking about a person's home.

We are not talking about a church. We are talking about a home. Yes, people can have a child predator in their home. If not, where on earth would they live? :tonofbricks:

A person should be able to kill an animal at their home, yes. Grandma used to do this all the time. She would grab the chicken by the neck, spin it, and the head would pop off. :laugh:

Overly loud music is a form of trespassing. Completely different.

Lying is not against the law. Not sure this man lied...

In a commercial situation, perhaps. A person's private home is a different matter.

We err on the side of freedom.

There is only one real neighbor. The only other thing next to them is a large sports complex/park. It is a rather rural area.

 

Not apples and oranges at all.

In the specific case that we are talking about....

The building was not built to code.

The guy lied when obtaining the building permits.

 

There is no gestapo here.

The city told him he could have his bible studies with a large group of people but he needed an "A Occupancy" building which he was allowed to build on his property.

He LIED and told the city that he was building a "residential accessory building" for a GAME ROOM which is NOT an "A Occupancy" building.

That is why he is facing jail.

WHY DID HE LIE ???

Why are YOU supporting a LIAR?

 

BTW this is just more of your trash talk that you resort to when you find yourself in a corner that you don't have the wits to get out of.

 

Why did he LIE?

Why are YOU supporting a LIAR?