“He’s basically running a small church in his home”

Wrong. Based on information given, he is the pastor of a church in the area. He is holding weekly Bible studies in his home with friends, something that happens in thousands of homes across the country every week.

Also, in 5 years of meeting, it sounds like this was the first complaint received. http://www.10news.com/news/19595677/detail.html

That would indicate to me that for the most part this is not something that seriously disrupts the neighborhood.

And as it is a gathering of friends in a person’s home, I am not sure how it would even qualify as an “administrative deviation”.

The fact that he’s pastor of a church with a building (which undoubtedly has a Major Use Permit – does he object to that also?) doesn’t mean his other established religious meeting isn’t also a church. (Nor does the fact that he claims the parishioners are his friends.) He’s got a moderately large group meeting every single week for religious services – sounds like a church to me. And he’s doing it in a residential cul-de-sac where there’s no group parking. And it’s an established event that has taken place essentially every week for over 5 years. This is not a casual group or just a gathering of friends – it’s an organized, ongoing function that in a place not designed for them. If one of the neighbors were hosting a backyard barbeque, or rock concert, or political rally every single week that drew something like 800 people a year into that tiny, dead-end street, year after year, the city would surely take notice. He’s no different.

This is a perfectly ordinary zoning issue. The guy has an ongoing group event in a neighborhood zoned for residential use only. It’s causing problems. He needs to come to some kind of accommodation, and to satisfy the city that he will do so. There’s a procedure for that. The San Diego County Zoning Board is hardly the gulag.

I don’t buy the martyr act either but It seems to me that there should be a better way to address the problem than invoking the zoning laws. I think a person should be allowed to invite twenty people over to their house on a weekly basis whether it’s for a bridge club, a bible study, a sewing circle, or a softball team getting together for a couple beers after a game. I think it’s a case of the right to enjoy one’s property rather than the right to pray.

If there is a problem with blocking the street, there should be some way for the cops to come in and write some tickets or tow some cars. Then the attendees would realize that some of them need to park a little farther away or share a ride. I don’t like the fact that fixing the problem depends on determining the nature of the gathering.

I attend a Bible Study. It is held every week in a residential home and we have been doing so for over 5 years. At one point, the pastor was teaching the group (though it was not his house). There have been as many as 10 other groups from the same church meeting on the same night in other locations. Ranging in size between 6 and 20 people. We all belong to the same church, but these weekly meetings are not church services but rather more often they are discussion groups.

If you had some knowledge about churches and mid-week small-group studies, you would know the difference and would not even consider them to be one and the same. It seems to me you have very little actual knowledge of the two.

As the article indicated, this was the ONLY complaint in over 5 years so the likelihood that the vehicles caused major parking problems is very slight. If there were violations, tickets should have been issued.

I disagree with him going for the martyr position and feel it could be done much better. But your contention (or anyone’s for that matter) that he is holding church services shows a significant lack of knowledge regarding what is being done.

BU:

You seem fixated on your personal church’s definition of a church (incidentally, not one that would be shared by every church, in particular the Christian “house churches” of China – an analogy I’m sure the heroic martyr of San Diego would be eager to acknowledge), and the distinction they make between a “church” and a “group”. That is irrelevant.

The point is that zoning laws exist to control the uses of land to keep conflict to a minimum. There is great leeway within any given zoning designation, but when you encroach into activities that are zoned differently, you take on the positive responsibility of making sure you aren’t conflicting with others who are staying within the permitted uses of your local area. It doesn’t matter what he calls it, he’s hosting regular large gatherings for non-residential operations, in a small enclosed area dedicated to private, single-family living. Whether it’s a “church” or a “meeting” is not the point (and in fact the zoning regulations don’t even use the word “church” – the refer to a “religious assembly”, which this certainly is no matter what kind of evasive jargon you put on it).

If he were having 15 “friends” over to do a little friendly home hog-rendering every single weekend for 5 years, the city would have something to say about that, too. Why? It’s not what his neighborhood was designed for, and it’s likely to cause conflict. In the present case, holding regular “religious assemblies” on an ongoing basis is not what his neighborhood was designed for, either, and it already has caused conflict. (Note also that the article does not indicate there was only one complaint in five years – it indicates there was a complaint recently; it says nothing about prior complaints. But the number of complaints is also irrelevant to the question whether he is in violation of zoning regulations, though it may be relevant to the question what mitigating steps are required.)

The bottom line is that, in buying property in a given zone, he accepts the requirements to operate under the terms approved for that zone. He is clearly bending, if not breaking, the restrictions for his residential zone. He apparently doesn’t care, and seems to believe that merely calling his group “friends” makes it all right, and calling it a “Bible study” gives him some special privilege. There is an established procedure for gaining approval for non-residential operations in a residential zone. He didn’t bother to follow it, and now claims exemption from it because his violations are religious. The zoning board has the legal authority and responsibility to enforce the zoning regulations, and to administer the process of reviewing and granting use permits. He claims they are persecuting him for applying perfectly standard and reasonable regulations that everyone else in his neighborhood, everyone else in the city, and every church in the city, seem to have no trouble abiding by. And you insist that all this is reasonable because of some pointless trivia about what is really a church service and what is merely an illegal and obstructive organized and ongoing non-residential usage of residential property. Why is simply following the law, like everyone else does, not an option?

Vinny:

You may be right that some simple practical solution would make more sense than a zoning board hearing, which seems a very crude instrument for dealing with what is basically a neighborhood traffic issue. On the other hand, they may not want to set a precedent that you can operate a church in your home in a residential neighborhood. Note that the same regulation covers “lodge, fraternal, and civic assemblies”, “child care”, “group care”, and a variety of other activities as well, many of which are obviously things that need careful planning. Allowing a loophole just because your group claims to be informal is probably a bad idea as a policy matter, even if this particular case is relatively minor.

But the real point of my post is that, however it’s resolved, the case is pretty straightforward and arises from perfectly ordinary and entirely reasonable civil regulations that are standard in every city. The problem is not that the big mean zoning board is persecuting this poor simple Christian; the problem is that he thinks he’s entitled to ignore certain laws or regulations just because he’s a Christian, and that he and so many other Christians are so quick to insist that being treated equally is somehow unfair or persecutory in their case.

Just out of curiosity, if it was a weekly meeting of a local group of feminists, or weight watchers or boy scouts or candle parties meeting in a home for 5 years would you feel the same way?

Also, have you ever been to a Bible Study in order to compare it to a church service? There is a significant difference. And most cities understand that.

I do understand your overall point but would want to see the details as to the problems being caused. From everything I have seen, there is very little evidence that what was happening was indeed disruptive to the neighborhood on an ongoing basis.

if it was a weekly meeting of a local group of feminists, or weight watchers or boy scouts

If it regularly included several times more people than are expected to live in the residential house in question, they used the public street for parking and occasionally damaged other people’s cars, and it went on every weekend for years on end? Of course the city would be within their rights to intervene. As I noted, the zoning regulation that covers “religious assemblies” also covers “lodge or fraternal groups”, “child care”, “clinical services”, and a variety of other activities. Boy Scout meetings would obviously be covered, and, stretching a point for “fraternal”, so would a feminist group. I don’t know what a candle party is, but I presume it would be covered under some sort of Major Use provision, or the vice laws.

The point is that the activities are not anticipated, or designed for, in residential neighborhoods; it doesn’t matter what the activity actually is, but rather that it’s not common to, or easily accommodated within, single-family dwellings in a residential street (particularly one with no exit). It doesn’t matter whether you call it a “church” or a “Bible Study” – when it gets to the point that it’s taking up the street where other people expect “quiet enjoyment” of their residential neighborhood, it’s a problem.

But the law also provides clear and reasonable ways to manage that problem. “Religious assemblies” are listed under the Major Use regulation as one of the things that are allowed in residential neighborhoods, with the right permits and under reasonable conditions. Proving that it’s not a church does not exempt him from the zoning regulations – the fact that it is a church gives him a clear path to getting the permit. But either way, he has to agree to respect his neighbors and keep things to a reasonable level. And that requirement is exactly the same one that every other large, disruptive group activity in such neighborhoods faces, and that every one but him seems to have met. Whether it’s a church, or a meeting group, or a Rotary Club, or a senior-citizen’s home, or a health clinic, or any other thing that brings a lot of traffic or other disruption into a non-commercial area, you need to demonstrate you can deal with the disruptions it will cause, which is precisely what the permitting process is for. This guy has dealt with his excess traffic by dumping it in the street where there’s no room, ignoring the permitting regulations, and now refusing to comply with them while braying some melodramatic nonsense about religious persecution. Why can’t he just follow the law?

BU,

I would like to see the details of the problems as well. Unfortunately, most of the conservative sources covering the story haven’t even mentioned the parking problems or the fact that one of the neighbors got a dent in his car from one of the bible studiers. They would rather play it up as an assault on religious freedom rather than a garden variety neighborhood spat, which is what I suspect it was.

If I were a betting man, I would lay odds on the following scenario: A neighbor who was frustrated with the traffic problem called the cops. Being that it was the City of San Diego, the cops no doubt had many much more serious matters demanding their attention so someone figured they could fob the problem off on someone else by telling the complainant that it sounded like an issue that should be taken up with the zoning authorities. Unfortunately, as Keith keenly observes, zoning regulations are a somewhat crude tool for dealing with a dispute like this as the only thing the zoning official could do was try to determine whether the bible study was a non-residential use of the property.

Back in my days as an evangelical Christian, I regularly attended a weekly bible study in a lay person’s home that regulary attracted fifteen to twenty-five believers. Happily, the home was in a suburban neighborhood where there was plently of space between the houses and parking was ample. The gatherings had a substantial social component and it is difficult for me to think of them as anything other than a perfectly legitimate residential use of the host’s home.

On the other hand, I also attended a couple of bible studies that were held in church facilities. These gatherings were more formally structured and conducted. They might arguably have been considered “church services.” I don’t think the fact that a pastor was leading the San Diego bible study is sufficient to make it a church service, but the inquiry does not seem irrational to me.

I think your point about the feminists and weight watchers is well taken as it illustrates the problem with invoking the zoning regulations. A bunch of guys having a weekly poker game may be a perfectly legitimate residential activity unless they are all members of the Knights of Columbus when it may be a meeting of a fraternal organization requiring some sort of special permit. I think the zoning laws are just too blunt a tool for resolving a dispute like this.

Conservative pundits love to whine about attacks on Christianity and I will not pretend that they never occur. However, whenever I go to the trouble to track down the details on these stories, it always turns out that the underlying dispute has a substantial and perfectly legitimate non-religious component. Lest you accuse me of liberal bias, I believe this occurs on the left as well. For every legitimate claim of racism, anti-semitism, and gay-bashing, there are no doubt several if not dozens in which a charge is leveled for propoganda purposes.

I will be curious to see where this goes. Reading about the story, the county seems to be changing its concerns depending on when they are discussed. (parking, no, religious assembly, no, major use variation, no, parking)

From the perspective of those not in the room, is a bible study with 15 people in a house actually any different than chunch services with the same 15 people in the same house?

If the person actually knows what a church service is and what a Bible study is, then yes, they would understand there is a difference.

This zoning law doesn’t apply to beer pong tournaments, right?

This zoning law doesn’t apply to beer pong tournaments, right?

Not as long as you call it a “Bible study”. Anyone who knows what one is can see that.

Actually Digg, according to KTK, weekly beer pong tournaments would actually be operating a full bar because alchohol would be involved and if people are gathering in a house or gathering in a registered building, if alchohol is being served they are the same thing. So yes, it would apply.

BU,

That wasn’t the answer I expected, so either the world is very strange to me or you answered a differest question than what I meant to ask. I’m pretty sure I failed to explain what I meant to ask.

What I meant by “somebody not in the room” was somebody who doesn’t care in the slightest about the religious content.

Maybe I’m just confused as to what is involved in church services. I haven’t been to any recently. I thought they mostly consisted of a group of people being in the same place, talking about their gods. I’ve never been to a bible study at all, but I’d alwayst assumed that it involved reading and talking about the content of one’s bible. I’d blithely assumed that that mostly amounted to talking about the god one sees in that bible.

So, if you’re not looking at the actual content of these discussions (Can we agree that no government agency should take consideration of the religious content?), what’s the difference between a church service and a bible study? I suppose it’s not uncommon to sing at church services. Does that happen at bible studies? Is whether there’s singing sufficient for a difference in zoning?

Dan,

Lemme take a stab on Big U’s behalf, because I don’t think his position is all that out of touch. I think Big U would argue that the key distinction is (and, I’m using these words for lack of better/more technical choices) the church is a formal gathering, while the bible study group is informal . The question is whether the ongoing repetition of an inherently informal, largely social event, then codifies it as a formal gathering implying it has purposes that extend beyond general socializing.

What if the couple had regular dinner parties that resulted in the same traffic issues? What if the couple had a daughter who hosted weekly study sessions among a group of ten classmates throughout the duration of high school? These instances are clearly social gatherings, so it would seem rather intrusive and blunt to sic the zoning board on them. Part of the issue is that the bible study begins to blur the line between something that’s a purely social gathering and that which is something more.

I’ll go a step further – what if the group formed a neighborhood watch, or a community board, which met at the same person’s house every week. Intuitively, is that a zoning issue? Surely, it wouldn’t be absolved of such a violation just because there’s widespread community buy-in to the idea.

My stance here is that if that the community should look for a way to resolve the traffic issues or whatever. And, the regular attendees should proactively make whatever concessions are necessary to accommodate any wishes related to such issues.

I can’t help but think that somewhere deep down there’s just a fear of a “cult” situation driving this, even if there’s been no reason given to assume that this is one (you know, no reason beyond the fact that all religious sects are cults by nature).

You’d think there would have been an episode of 7th Heaven about this… Rev.Camden for lyfe!

Digg:

The issue of whether it’s a “church” or a “group” is irrelevant. And the question isn’t whether it’s “formal” or “informal”, either.

Different areas are set aside by zoning laws for different purposes, and for a very good reason: it’s much better to keep certain kinds of practices together rather than letting them all mix up in a way that would cause conflict. Civic planning is just a way to keep people from being overrun by activities that aren’t suitable for their area, even if they would be legal under other circumstances. Once the zoning definitions and regulations have been set up, everyone is expected to follow them to be sure the system keeps working, even if they themselves believe there isn’t a problem.

Most especially, residential neighborhoods should be quiet and low-traffic, to provide a comfortable and safe environment for people’s private lives. Heavy industry, dangerous or noxious technologies, noisy businesses, or high-traffic gatherings are zoned away from residential neighborhoods because they intrude on the quiet and comfort people expect there. At the same time, certain kinds of services are needed in residential areas, and certain social practices, such as church and community groups, are also part of residential life. These have the potential to intrude on the quiet and comfort of the neighborhood, but they can also be desirable in other ways, so there is a specific procedure for making allowances for them, after appropriate review of any issues they might cause. You can have a church (or a “group”) or other non-residential operation in your residential neighborhood, but you can’t just go ahead and do it without permission. Why? Because your group members might end up blocking the street and hitting other people’s cars. How to deal with this? Make your plans known in an open community meeting, and see if there are any objections, or any needed accommodations, and come to an agreement ahead of time.

The wrong way to go about it? Do whatever you want for years at a time without making any effort to follow the law, wait until the situation becomes unbearable and somebody calls the cops, then whine that you’re being persecuted, demand special rights on religious grounds, continue to refuse to follow the same zoning laws everyone else in your neighborhood follows including religious groups, threaten a lawsuit if you aren’t given a special exemption, call in national right-wing media who will drum up a religious controversy on your behalf, and generally act like a whiny, selfish dick.

The same considerations apply no matter what the actual activity in question is. The trigger is that it’s not a normal activity in a residential neighborhood – if that’s true, you need to ask permission, and show that you’ll be reasonable.The only issue is whether this activity is a usage that falls within the expectations for residential zoning.

The zoning board is not trying to shut him down; they’re trying to mediate a problem while actually offering him a way out. The “religious assembly” provision of the zoning regulations is not a prohibition on churches in residential neighborhoods, it’s a specifically recognized permissible variance on the residential zoning restrictions. The various things that fall under the Major Use Permit are things that are allowed as exceptions to the residential-use requirement. But you do have to apply for the relevant permit, which means submitting a plan for your intended activity and addressing any concerns that may be raised. The regulations that mean you have to have permission to stage a regular, ongoing semi-public group event on a small closed street zoned for single-family residences are the same regulations that keep your neighbor from starting a small foundry in his garage, or hosting political rallies for his “friends” in the street in front of your driveway once a week. Allowing loopholes for aggressive Christians, or gatherings of “friends”, or “Bible studies”, or whatever, would just encourage everyone to ignore zoning restrictions and claim the same loophole for themselves. Having reasonable regulations and expecting people to follow them hardly seems like a high price to pay.

There is a slight grey area, here, which may be what people are trying to get at with their increasingly-fanciful examples. It’s true that ordinary residential use does anticipate gatherings of friends or acquaintances – sometimes repeatedly. But it’s rare that that would amount to regular weekly gatherings of 15 or more people and numerous cars in an area with virtually no available parking, for years at a time. If he can argue that his church group is more like a private party or kaffeeklatch (that just happens to take place the same time every week, 300 times in succession over more than half a decade), maybe he can wriggle out from under the zoning permit. But then nobody will have any recourse except to call the cops every time he causes a problem – and if I were the neighbor whose car was damaged, and I heard that the city ruled they couldn’t impose any regulations on the situation at all, I’d feel I’d cut him all the slack he was going to get by this time and I’d have the cops on speed dial from then on. Even if he can get around the regulations, it’s not clear he would be doing himself a favor. Getting the permit means he’s allowed to hold his meetings – it also means he has to abide by the terms of the permit. That hardly seems like too much to ask, and it’s the same thing everyone else is asked to do as well.

KTK,

Actually, it appears that whether it’s a “church” or a “group” is highly relevant for the simple reason that the zoning regulations attach significance to the term “church.”

The question that seems to be important is whether ongoing regular gatherings hosted by one particular resident in a neighborhood intrude upon other residents’ enjoyment of their own homes. If so, the other residents should have a remedy regardless of the nature of the gatherings. If the gathering does not so intrude, then its nature should by and large be irrelevant. The zoning regulations appear to provide a remedy based on a somewhat arbitrary and capricious determination of whether a group of people who share an interest in a particular religious text are in fact a church. That seems to me to be a very poor way to decide when a remedy is warranted.

it appears that whether it’s a “church” or a “group” is highly relevant for the simple reason that the zoning regulations attach significance to the term “church.”

Not that I can see. There are several defined categories of residential zoning, all designating “areas where family residential uses are the principal and dominant use”. Additionally, any of the residential zones can be modified with a permit for “Minor Use” or “Major Use” – both of which recognize various standard justifications for a zoning variance for non-residential activities in residential neighborhoods. One of the Major Use Permit categories is “Religious Assembly”; none actually contains the word “church”, and no distinction is made between types of religious assemblies. (All of this is available on the zoning board Website I originally linked. Click the “Use Regulations” link.)

The zoning regulations appear to provide a remedy based on a somewhat arbitrary and capricious determination of whether a group of people who share an interest in a particular religious text are in fact a church.

I can find no such regulation. There is a recognized permit category for “religious assemblies” (i.e., a standard variance that allows religious assemblies, not prohibits them), but it says nothing about the question whether you are a “church” determining your eligibility, and at any rate, again, being a “church” would apparently be to this guy’s advantage as far as qualifying for the permit.

If by “church” you mean “religious assembly” under the terms of the zoning laws, then, yes, the question is whether this is what he is doing, and if he is doing that without a permit then he’s in violation. But it’s not arbitrary – the zoning laws exist for very good reasons, and they operate they way they do – by adjudicating types of uses, not specific individual causes of complaint – for a good reason also.

The question that seems to be important is whether ongoing regular gatherings hosted by one particular resident in a neighborhood intrude upon other residents’ enjoyment of their own homes. If so, the other residents should have a remedy regardless of the nature of the gatherings. If the gathering does not so intrude, then its nature should by and large be irrelevant.

Not exactly. If you’re causing a disturbance, you’re still subject to citation by the police. But the zoning question is whether you’re using the land in a given zone in ways the zoning laws do not permit. You don’t have to be causing a disturbance to be in violation of the zoning laws (though in this case the pastor guy seems to be doing both). And there’s good reason it’s set up that way.

Land use zones are set up to organize different kinds of uses harmoniously, but they do so by defining uses by type (e.g., residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.), and then assigning different types of permitted uses by area. That is, the zoning laws don’t say “you can do anything that is harmonious with the neighbors”, they say “you can do these kinds of things in these areas, these other kinds of things in these other areas, and this third kind of thing in this third area, and not otherwise”. This allows the county to regulate conflicts over appropriate uses in a general and consistent way, and avoids case-by-case analysis of every single complaint. It gives people who are in compliance with the zoning laws a clear defense (if you build a residence in an industrial zone and then complain about the noise, you’re out of luck – your neighbors do not have to give you “quiet enjoyment” of your property, because that’s not expected in an industrial zone). At the same time, it means that people who are not in compliance have no defense (you can’t run a retail business out of your home whether or not it creates noise, because residential neighborhoods are mostly not zoned for retail use).

If you could just do whatever you want in any zone, and reject any forms of regulation or control until somebody proved there was a conflict, then the zoning laws would be useless. And, of course, those who could afford to litigate disputes endlessly would essentially be untouchable, while those who could not would be prohibited from doing even ordinary things by the threat of an enforcement suit. In addition, you could never be confident that a neighborhood you chose for some given purpose would remain suitable for that purpose – as soon as you built your dream house in a residential neighborhood, somebody could set up a blast furnace next door and you would have to take on the burden of legally proving both they did not have a right to do that and that it was inconveniencing you.

Setting up the zoning laws categorically, rather than on a case-by-case basis, gives a clear definition in every case: if your use is permitted by your zone definition, you can go ahead without interference; if it does not meet the zone definition but is one of the related uses recognized as grounds for a variance permit, you can still go ahead but you have to apply for the permit first, and will be asked to make reasonable accommodations; if what you want to do does not meet the zone definition and does not qualify for a permit, it will not be allowed unless you convince the board to re-zone your property (which is not uncommon in rural areas, but is uncommon in urban ones, for obvious reasons).

It’s a good system, and it’s one that has been in place for a long time in most parts of the country. This guy’s neighborhood was undoubtedly zoned residential long before he moved into it, and if he thought that was a negligible issue, he’s finding out he was wrong. Not only was this pastor supposed to know and heed his local zoning regulations, but his neighbors have a legal right to expect that he will do so as well – they not only accepted the zoning regulations on their houses, but anticipated that he would accept the regulations on his, when they bought their properties in the same neighborhood. The zoning laws put the burden on him to comply, not on them to pursue a legal case to get their rights, and that doesn’t seem unreasonable.

KTK – I hear you, and your arguments sound reasonable. But, I still call shenanagins. Frankly, the idea of having to apply for a Major Use permit for a book club performs on the sniff test the way star football recruits generally do on the SATs. The nature of the gathering very important here – not the denomination, but the fact that it is religious by nature. It’s also a large part of the reason why you chose to write about this in the first place; you would not have made this post had it been about a book club. We both know that.

Again, I will certainly grant that this guy is a selfish dick, and playing the persecuted Christian card is vomit-inducing. My point is that the zoning board is a blunt and crude way of dealing with this. The people themselves should make a proactive attempt to deal with this.

And, for the record, while the organizer may be a selfish dick. To an extent, the complainers can be considered whiny bitches. I’m not going to get much sympathy here, but people aren’t entitled to live in a Country Time lemondade ad just because they plunk down a downpayment on a colonial on a cul de sac. Sorry, other people live their lives too. Sometimes they encroach on yours a bit. My advice, grow a pair!

This is starting to give me flashbacks of the annoying neighbor post that I had written on Meta’s site a while back. Virtually nobody agreed with me.

Nothing reeks more of haughty entitlement than the shit our citizenry decides to complain about.

(I know I’m being a bit of a contrarian for the sake of here, but I think this is a point of view also worth stating.)

Just out of curiosity, I would be curious to know if they would have been cited if they had answered “no” to the religious questions the city employee asked. This is where the whole thing fails the sniff test.

If it does not matter “what” the meetings were for but just that they were happening weekly and causing problems, why would the city not just cite “weekly meetings” since the “reason” for the meetings apparently does not matter. If it was a violation of zoning, the reason does not matter as much as the history of said violations. Correct?

That is why it looks like more than just a zoning violation issue.

If they had issued the warning, simply citing variations, then when the pastor complained about religious discrimination, the city could easily have said “We don’t care what the reasons were and did not even know. All we know was that the weekly meetings violated the zoning rules.” The city employee brought the religious aspect into the discussion.

Now, I agree that to be a good neighbor, people should carpool so that there are less vehicles on the street which would seem to be the entire reason for the complaint in the first place. It would make sense to me that if they can clean up the parking issues, then both sides could back down.

The nature of the gathering very important here – not the denomination, but the fact that it is religious by nature. It’s also a large part of the reason why you chose to write about this in the first place; you would not have made this post had it been about a book club. We both know that.

I would be curious to know if they would have been cited if they had answered “no” to the religious questions the city employee asked. This is where the whole thing fails the sniff test.

There is an existing recognized variance permit category for churches. After it became clear he was holding religious meetings, he was told to apply for that permit – which would give him the right to keep holding the meetings, subject to reasonable accommodations. If he had said that his meetings were not “religious assemblies” (and not “child care”, “lodge or fraternal operations”, “group care”, or one of the other dozen or so recognized permissible uses), then he would be straightforwardly in violation with no recourse; he’d be fined, shut down, and ineligible for a permit. The city is pointing the way toward him coming into compliance – something he was supposed to do himself.

Yes, it’s true that the categorical zoning regulations are somewhat blunt. There is an exemption for “religious assemblies” because those are the sorts of things that commonly take place in residential neighborhoods; there isn’t one for “random large groups” because that is not. So you have the awkward result that some marginal cases – regular, semi-organized group meetings that take place in private homes – might be permissible if they happen to fall under one of the recognized categories and not otherwise. But that’s still the result of somebody trying to use a private home in a residential neighborhood for activities that aren’t really part of the expected uses of that property.

For clear cases of non-residential operations – running an actual senior-citizen group home, child-care center, or free-standing church – it’s obvious why zoning variances are needed. For ordinary uses, like just living your own life in your own home and not doing anything unusual, it’s obvious that no permit is required at all. But for in-between cases – inviting large groups to private homes on a regular, ongoing basis, and taking up a lot of parking in a private-residence area – it’s obvious that some sort of regulation should be imposed but harder to figure out exactly which category applies.

A reasonable person would take responsibility for causing a problem and find a way to work it out. A semi-dickish one would try to evade the intent of the law by making some kind of weasely argument to the effect that their obviously non-residential activity is really just an ordinary private gathering (every week for 5 years). A real dick would then claim some kind of special status because of their self-chosen group identity, and threaten a lawsuit against the city if they aren’t allowed to simply ignore the law entirely.

If it was a violation of zoning, the reason does not matter as much as the history of said violations. Correct?

As I explained in my previous comment, the type of use of the property is the basis for determining compliance with zoning – and there are very good reasons why it works that way. The point to zoning laws is to prevent conflict, not to impose punishments if there is a conflict. (The criminal law takes care of punishment.) If you don’t comply with the zoning regulations, you’re in violation whether or not a conflict has yet occurred. The history of conflict may be an issue if it becomes a criminal matter, but the zoning board merely regulates compliance, it does not mediate conflict.

The zoning laws don’t make it illegal to run a church. There are churches everywhere! The law creates an explicit category of permit for churches – which it does not do for every other kind of gathering. There’s absolutely no barrier to running a church, even in a residential area. But you do have to apply for a permit, so that the county can head off any likely conflicts ahead of time. If he had done what he was supposed to, it’s almost undoubtedly true that his people wouldn’t have been blocking the street for 5 years, and wouldn’t have hit a neighbor’s car. It would have been obvious there would be a parking problem in that tiny court and they would have made him deal with it upfront, not wait until he had harmed somebody else enough that the police were called. Now that his activities have harmed somebody, he’s still claiming he has a right not to submit to any kind of review, even notwithstanding that there’s a distinct category of permit all ready and waiting for him if he’d only follow the same procedures as everybody else.

If they had issued the warning, simply citing variations, then when the pastor complained about religious discrimination, the city could easily have said “We don’t care what the reasons were and did not even know. All we know was that the weekly meetings violated the zoning rules.” The city employee brought the religious aspect into the discussion.

There are two different issues at hand: the conflict with the neighbors, and compliance with zoning. They are not handled by the same agency. The police were called to deal with the damaged car, and discovered that the incident was the result of ongoing group meetings taking place in a private home over a period of years. That information got back to the zoning board, which then began a zoning compliance enforcement procedure. The car damage and parking enforcement will be handled by the police and courts; the zoning issue is the province of the zoning board. And as I’ve said, he can still be in violation of the zoning regulations whether or not he keeps crashing into his neighbors’ cars.

Being a religious assembly has no bearing on, and does not provide a defense to, the traffic and property-damage charges. It does bear on the question of whether that activity is permitted in a residential zone (in exactly the same way that every other possible use of land is subject to zoning laws as well) – and it provides an established pathway to getting a permit for such activities. He was told that he can get such a permit if he applies for it. He will also have to come up with a plan to avoid parking problems or other conflicts – a plan that is obviously necessary, since there have already been such conflicts. But being a religious assembly is relevant only because it’s a recognized grounds for a permit (because religious assemblies are a recognized common activity in residential neighborhoods – he probably can’t get a permit to start a chicken farm, even if he raises “only” 15 chickens, because that is not a recognized residential activity). He was told to apply for a religious assembly permit because he’s holding religious assemblies. I don’t know how this became some sort of conspiracy.

people aren’t entitled to live in a Country Time lemondade ad just because they plunk down a downpayment on a colonial on a cul de sac. . . . This is starting to give me flashbacks of the annoying neighbor post that I had written on Meta’s site a while back. Virtually nobody agreed with me.

I was thinking of exactly that exchange when I read your comment! You’re not really down with the Pleasant Valley Sunday ethos, are you?

KTK,

“Religious assembly” sounds even more arbitrary to me than “church service.” When devout people get together, almost every social gathering takes on religious overtones. They say grace, they quote scripture, and they offer spirtual advice to one another. It may be annoying to agnostics like me, but I wouldn’t argue that these are not typical “family residential uses” of one’s home or that they have not been recognized as such historically.

1. I don’t recall seeing the police called in.
2. the car damage was minimal and the repairs were already paid for by the pastor (not saying it is not an issue, but rather indicating that KTK’s suggestion of police and court involvement is made up)
3. from the way the story reads, the zoning official showed up based on a call that was made due to the parking problems. If these are two different areas, why did the police or traffic bylaw officers not show up since that was the issue?
4. based on your argument, tupperware parties, candle parties, etc. that are held on a regular basis would violate zoning laws regardless of whether or not they interfere with the neighbors. Am I reading that correctly?

And finally, again, this is not a church. IF he is forced to apply for a zoning variation, then the same will need to be done for any book clubs, wine clubs, etc. that meet on a weekly basis. True?

But that’s still the result of somebody trying to use a private home in a residential neighborhood for activities that aren’t really part of the expected uses of that property.

Sorry – didn’t read the whole comment, gotta jump into a meeting. But, here’s my point – a book club is a use of residential property that, is completely normal, though not necessarily “expected.” A bible study group is basically a book club, which happens to be devoted to the same book every week. I don’t really see a problem.

based on your argument, tupperware parties, candle parties, etc. that are held on a regular basis would violate zoning laws regardless of whether or not they interfere with the neighbors. Am I reading that correctly?

I would think there would actually be a better argument for regulating tupperware parties or candle parties because you could make a legit argument that those are business functions. And not like, I’m an author, I work out of my house, I’m on business. But like, I’m basically operating a store out of my home.

(I don’t know what candle parties are either, must be a Canadian thing – drink Molsen, watch hockey, buy candles)

BU,
I told you my theory of why the cops didn’t deal with the parking problem. They figured out a way to pass the buck by referring the complaining neighbor to the zoning officials. It hasn’t been reported that way, but I’ve got ten bucks that says that’s what happened.

Digg,
The candle parties are just another variation of “network marketing” like Tuppeware, AmWay, Mary Kay, etc., etc.

KTK > thought maybe if you were actually interested in the truth rather than in simply attacking Christians that you might actually track the events on this story.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/san-diego-pastor-receives-letter-of-apology-from-city/

So?

As the story correctly notes, and as I emphasized from the beginning:

“While many saw the incident as an issue of religious expression, the county said this was a land issue. The county had received complaints from a neighbor about traffic and parking issues resulting from the weekly Bible studies.”

And, as the story also notes, and as was the main point of my original post, merely being within the law was of no interest to this whiny professional martyr. Even after the issue was resolved, perfectly correctly, by determining that he did not fall under the zoning-exemption permit process – which was the purpose of the summons he originally received, in the first place – he refused to stop complaining until he received a personal apology.

“Jones, however, wanted something more concrete than a public statement.

‘We don’t have anything in writing. We want something very clearly that states people can pray in homes and have friends over and read Bible together and study a bit,’ Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church, told the local 10News, which first reported the incident.”

So he not only gets to grandstand for the Christian masses, he gets to demand that the mayor personally play his tune for him – when in fact the entire incident was nothing more than an ordinary zoning-compliance investigation, resolved by application of the already-existing rules.

“According to 10News, Jones is satisfied with Wednesday’s letter.”

Well, thank God for that! A private citizen skirting the edge of the law has graciously agreed to accept the city’s apology for applying ordinary and perfectly legal regulation enforcement procedures that he somehow believes he can scorn because he’s a Christian. I sure hope he wasn’t too inconvenienced by the law, or anything. That good, good man . . . to actually allow the city to negate its own regulations on his behalf and agree, in return, to stop whining and start crowing instead. How magnanimous you can be, while living free of the law with Jesus in your pocket!

Interesting.

You say:

“Even after the issue was resolved, perfectly correctly, by determining that he did not fall under the zoning-exemption permit process ”

Then you say:

“has graciously agreed to accept the city’s apology for applying ordinary and perfectly legal regulation enforcement procedures that he somehow believes he can scorn because he’s a Christian.”

And you also say:

“That good, good man . . . to actually allow the city to negate its own regulations on his behalf”

If it was a perfectly legal enforcement, then the citation would not have been removed and he would have been forced to apply for the zoning permits. If it was resolved correctly, then they are not negating their own policy. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth SIMPLY because it is a Christian who objected.

And as far as written documentation, for legal purposes (as I am sure you are aware) it is necessary to have for court if anything were to change. Or are Christians not even allowed to defend themselves in court in your world view?

If it was a perfectly legal enforcement, then the citation would not have been removed and he would have been forced to apply for the zoning permits. If it was resolved correctly, then they are not negating their own policy. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth SIMPLY because it is a Christian who objected.

The established procedure for cases of potential or apparent violations of the zoning regulations is to issue a citation and hold a zoning board hearing on the matter. The citation is not a conviction and does not carry a penalty. The hearing can result in a finding that the activity is not a violation, in which case nothing further is done. It’s a perfectly normal procedure, and it’s the procedure the city was attempting to follow after this guy and his group had been blocking his neighbors’ parking for 5 years and finally hit somebody’s car. If he’d simply gone through with it like anyone else would have, presumably – since he and you are so insistent that there was nothing to complain about – he would have been found in compliance and he could shut up about it.

Instead, he had to create a bogus national issue and get the mayor personally involved, to come to exactly the same resolution that was available through normal channels the legal way. It being a perfectly legal enforcement procedure does not entail that he would necessarily have been found in violation – that’s what the hearing is for. The city was simply doing what it always does, and he could simply have followed the established procedures like everyone else. Zoning board hearings take place all the time. They often end in the citizen’s favor. They rarely end with the mayor’s direct intervention. Somehow this guy was special. I suspect there’s a SIMPLE reason why . . .

And as far as written documentation, for legal purposes (as I am sure you are aware) it is necessary to have for court if anything were to change. Or are Christians not even allowed to defend themselves in court in your world view?

This is incomprehensible. But whatever it means, the whole point of the board hearing is to listen to his side of the story. Not only was he allowed to defend himself – he was ordered to. But using the legal process seems as offensive to him as the idea that the law actually applies to him in the first place, so he found a way around it. He was not denied the chance to defend himself; he refused to use it – the same procedure that is available to, and availed of by, every other citizen in similar circumstances. Instead, he decided that whipping up yet another artificial cause for protest by the religious right and their compliant press was more satisfying than simply participating in the existing system of regulation and accommodation that makes up a civilization.

Interesting. The citation and the officer didn’t mention anything about parking. That came after the fact when the complaint was registered. If the parking had been the issue initially, that would have been included in the citation.

Initially you attacked him because you felt it was a church. The county said it isn’t. You attack him because of parking issues. All but one of his neighbors says the parking is not a problem. But you choose to ignore everyone except the person who complained about the Christian.

You say the issue was resolved perfectly correctly and then in the same paragraph (and in your next post) make it clear you think policy and procedure were ignored, meaning it was not resolved perfectly correctly. Make up your mind.

Or, you could do the easy and honest thing and say “Gee, maybe the guys who said there was a big difference between a Bible Study in his home and a church gathering were right”. Somehow I don’t see that happening.

Initially you attacked him because you felt it was a church.

From my original post:

“Naturally, whining about persecution was preferable, in their case, to obeying the same laws as everyone else, . . . There is a recognized mechanism for [getting a use permit] – he simply refuses to use it, and claims “being a Christian” as a get-out-of-zoning-board-free card. . . . He ought to go before the board, find a way to work something out . . . .”

From my first comment:

“This is a perfectly ordinary zoning issue. The guy has an ongoing group event in a neighborhood zoned for residential use only. It’s causing problems. He needs to come to some kind of accommodation, and to satisfy the city that he will do so. There’s a procedure for that.”

From my second comment:

“You seem fixated on your personal church’s definition of a church . . . . That is irrelevant. The point is that zoning laws exist to control the uses of land to keep conflict to a minimum. . . . Whether it’s a “church” or a “meeting” is not the point . . . . The bottom line is that, in buying property in a given zone, he accepts the requirements to operate under the terms approved for that zone. He is clearly bending, if not breaking, the restrictions for his residential zone. He apparently doesn’t care . . . . Why is simply following the law, like everyone else does, not an option?”

From my third comment:

“when it gets to the point that it’s taking up the street where other people expect “quiet enjoyment” of their residential neighborhood, it’s a problem. But the law also provides clear and reasonable ways to manage that problem. . . . This guy has dealt with his excess traffic by dumping it in the street where there’s no room, ignoring the permitting regulations, and now refusing to comply with them while braying some melodramatic nonsense about religious persecution. Why can’t he just follow the law?”

From my fifth comment:

“The issue of whether it’s a ‘church’ or a ‘group’ is irrelevant. And the question isn’t whether it’s ‘formal’ or ‘informal’, either. . . . How to deal with [neighborhood conflict]? Make your plans known in an open community meeting, and see if there are any objections, or any needed accommodations, and come to an agreement ahead of time. The wrong way to go about it? Do whatever you want for years at a time without making any effort to follow the law, wait until the situation becomes unbearable and somebody calls the cops, then whine that you’re being persecuted, demand special rights on religious grounds, continue to refuse to follow the same zoning laws everyone else in your neighborhood follows including religious groups, threaten a lawsuit if you aren’t given a special exemption, call in national right-wing media who will drum up a religious controversy on your behalf, and generally act like a whiny, selfish dick. . . . Getting the permit means he’s allowed to hold his meetings – it also means he has to abide by the terms of the permit. That hardly seems like too much to ask, and it’s the same thing everyone else is asked to do as well.”

From my sixth comment:

“Not only was this pastor supposed to know and heed his local zoning regulations, but his neighbors have a legal right to expect that he will do so as well – they not only accepted the zoning regulations on their houses, but anticipated that he would accept the regulations on his, when they bought their properties in the same neighborhood. The zoning laws put the burden on him to comply, not on them to pursue a legal case to get their rights, and that doesn’t seem unreasonable.”

From my seventh comment:

“Yes, it’s true that the categorical zoning regulations are somewhat blunt. There is an exemption for ‘religious assemblies’ because those are the sorts of things that commonly take place in residential neighborhoods; there isn’t one for ‘random large groups’ because that is not. So you have the awkward result that some marginal cases – regular, semi-organized group meetings that take place in private homes – might be permissible if they happen to fall under one of the recognized categories and not otherwise. . . . A reasonable person would take responsibility for causing a problem and find a way to work it out. A semi-dickish one would try to evade the intent of the law by making some kind of weasely argument to the effect that their obviously non-residential activity is really just an ordinary private gathering (every week for 5 years). A real dick would then claim some kind of special status because of their self-chosen group identity, and threaten a lawsuit against the city if they aren’t allowed to simply ignore the law entirely. . . . If he had done what he was supposed to, it’s almost undoubtedly true that his people wouldn’t have been blocking the street for 5 years, and wouldn’t have hit a neighbor’s car. It would have been obvious there would be a parking problem in that tiny court and they would have made him deal with it upfront, not wait until he had harmed somebody else enough that the police were called. Now that his activities have harmed somebody, he’s still claiming he has a right not to submit to any kind of review, even notwithstanding that there’s a distinct category of permit all ready and waiting for him if he’d only follow the same procedures as everybody else.”

From my eighth comment:

“as was the main point of my original post, merely being within the law was of no interest to this whiny professional martyr. Even after the issue was resolved, perfectly correctly, by determining that he did not fall under the zoning-exemption permit process – which was the purpose of the summons he originally received, in the first place – he refused to stop complaining until he received a personal apology. . . . in fact the entire incident was nothing more than an ordinary zoning-compliance investigation, resolved by application of the already-existing rules.”

Do you see a pattern here?

You don’t ever seem, at any time in this entire thread, to have understood simple statments made to you time and again, or the repeated detailed explanations of how the zoning regulation process works. Nothing about this issue has ever had anything whatsoever to do with whether his years of weekly snake-handling-and-neighborhood-destruction-derby sessions constitute a “church” or a “Bible study”. As was repeatedly pointed out, the word “church” does not even appear in the zoning permit category list. The issue for the city was whether his ongoing organized meetings and their attendant public disruption were of a kind to require one of the dozen or more various use permits established precisely to regulate such activities and meliorate such disruption. Being or not being a “church” has no bearing on that question, and neither being nor not being one will establish compliance or non-compliance with the zoning regulations.

The entire point of my post was not to explore the fine, tedious, and utterly unimportant distinction between a “church” and a “Bible study”, it was to point out that this character is a whiny selfish asshole, and, more to the point, that he is uniquely allowed to get away with that only because he’s a Christian.

Everybody else obeys the same zoning regulations he does; nobody else gets Fox News to launch a cry-fest for them, or the mayor to personally intervene in an ordinary regulatory board matter. He behaved in an inconsiderate and inconvenient matter for years, finally resulting in property damage and police complaints. He was subject to absolutely no kind of persecution or unfair treatment whatsoever. He received exactly the same consideration and accommodation (and likely much more) as any person in that city is entitled to. But, with the help of Fox News, he also made himself a national cause celebre for the religious-right outrage industry, and wangled personal indulgences from the mayor directly, simply by demanding – and getting – special consideration because he’s a Christian. And all this over a parking problem that he created.

Selfish, whiny asshole.

Let’s look at it from a different perspective.

For years they had meetings and no complaints.
Then there was one accident for which he paid the repair bill.
Then one complaint was made. Not several as you seem to like to continue saying.
The rest of the neighbors stated the meetings and attendant parking issues were no problem.

So it would seem that there is more of an issue with one neighbor than the actual parking.

The citation officer that went to his door specifically inquired about the nature of the meetings and NOTHING related to parking was mentioned. Parking and traffic issues were not even noted on the official warning from the city. Would it not make sense that if parking and traffic issues were the problem that those things may have been mentioned in the warning.

You are right, though, about one thing: The entire point of your post was not to explore fine points between church and Bible study. The entire point was to grab an opportunity to bash a Christian. If this was anyone other than a Christian or an avowed vocal rightwinger doing this, you would never have written the blog and you certainly would not have called anyone a selfish, whiny asshole. In fact, if this was a feminist group, or a pro-gay group that was holding weekly meetings, odds are good you would be taking the position of supporting them in their fight against “mysogynistic” or “homophobic” city workers and neighbors.

This has been documented many, many times . . .

So it would seem that there is more of an issue with one neighbor than the actual parking.

(!) He had complained to the neighbor himself about parking, repeatedly. The police were called when somebody hit a car outside his house.

(2) It doesn’t matter how many complaints there were. There was an obvious question about whether these repeated large gatherings were in keeping with zoning regulations. There is a longstanding method for resolving such questions. The city is perfectly right to use that process as it is intended to be used. Most normal people would have complied.

The citation officer that went to his door specifically inquired about the nature of the meetings and NOTHING related to parking was mentioned.

As has been explained, more than once, traffic enforcement is a police responsibility; zoning compliance is a zoning board issue. The police were called when a car was damaged – but apparently no citation resulted. The zoning board investigated, as a result of that incident, when they learned that large gatherings were taking place on a weekly basis in a cramped residential area. The person in charge suffered the hideous oppression of a polite inquiry as to what kind of gatherings he was holding, was instructed as to what kind of permits were available for his use to ensure that he would be in compliance with zoning regulations in the future, and given a hearing date to determine whether he in fact needed such a permit. He could easily have simply shown up at the hearing and explained himself. He refused to do so, and chose to gin up an overwrought campaign of self-pity on no other basis than that he felt entitled, as a Christian, not to have to comply with ordinary civil procedure.

Parking and traffic issues were not even noted on the official warning from the city. Would it not make sense that if parking and traffic issues were the problem that those things may have been mentioned in the warning.

No matter how long you persist in refusing to understand it, it still remains true: parking enforcement is not the job of the zoning board. The board hearing, and the hearing summons, were entirely related to zoning issues. The entire issue involved in the board hearing, and the – almost trivially inconsequential – contact he had with zoning enforcement personnel on that question, had to do with zoning issues and the question what category of permit might be relevant in his case. (The fact that he was conducting religious assemblies makes the answer to that question the “Religious Assembly” permit – which the authorized zoning regulation enforcement personnel determined by the onerous and unconstitutional procedure of . . . asking.) He refused to comply with this procedure – the same one every person building, renovating, or re-purposing a dwelling in that entire city, and every existing religious assembly, had already complied with without throwing a nationally advertised tantrum.

The entire point was to grab an opportunity to bash a Christian.

The entire point was to note that Christians constantly claim – and are granted – unique and unwarranted exemptions from requirements of law and civility on the basis of their religion, and their constant self-absorbed squawking about it. He was granted a personal dispensation by the mayor, and lionized across the country by equally whiny and perspective-challenged co-religionists, for those reasons alone, when there was already a reasonable, simple, legal, uncontroversial, and widely-used process by which he could have achieved the same result without being an asshole. He chose the latter, while declaring that it was his religion that drove him to do so. I’m willing to take him at his word.

In fact, if this was a feminist group, or a pro-gay group that was holding weekly meetings, odds are good you would be taking the position of supporting them in their fight against “mysogynistic” or “homophobic” city workers and neighbors.

Actually, there’s empirical evidence on just that point, and, not surprisingly, you’re completely wrong.

Christians have never been blocked, in America, from building churches, holding religious services, or doing whatever else they wanted. Churches are everywhere. Christians ring your freakin’ doorbell and stuff tracts through your mail slot. They manipulated the government into defacing every public building, courthouse, coin, and dollar bill with their slogans. They planted their symbols on every hillside, public park, and mountaintop they can reach. They re-wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, school textbooks, and the plaques on NASA space modules to carry their propaganda, and remove things they don’t like. (The woman figure on the Pioneer “Pictures of Earth” plaque has no vulva, to avoid objections from Christians. Christians objected anyway.) Every public school, and every government body at the state and federal level, has enshrined their religious holidays – and no one else’s (with the exception of Jews in a very limited number of local jurisdictions) – with unique legal status. They demanded – and got – special status for faith-healer quacks to bill Medicare for their services as if they were doctors. They erect sectarian religious monuments inside public courthouses and refuse to remove them even when ordered by the highest courts of their state – while claiming religious privilege to do so. They launched a national campaign, running year after year, to punish people who say “Happy Holidays”. And in every case, no matter how intrusive, selfish, overbearing, offensive, or just plain stupid, they were taken seriously and given absurdly deferential special privileges.

But when they are asked to stand before the law on an equal footing with other citizens, without special privileges, to follow the same regulations and procedures as others, and to put their slogans, symbols, rituals, and holidays on an equal footing with everyone else’s, your ears split from the crying and complaining. And commonly they demand – and often get – special dispensation not to obey the same laws and comply with the same regulations as everyone else.

But there is an equally-long history of the legal status of women and gays in America. And it is precisely the opposite.

Women and gays were, in different ways, officially held to second-class legal status for virtually the entire history of this country, and in many ways still today. They did not receive special exemptions from the law – they were explicitly barred from legal rights and protections guaranteed to others. There were categories of crimes that consisted entirely in merely doing what was perfectly legal for men, or straight people, if you happened to be a woman or gay (attempting to vote, being alone on the street late at night, buying or selling property, being in a bar, dancing, kissing in public, working as a schoolteacher [including if you were pregnant, as a woman] . . .). Other people (men) demanded – and got – control of their money, property, living and working conditions, and bodies. Other people (Christians) demanded – and got – the right to dictate their living and working conditions, recreation, and rights to marriage and all its subsequent attendant rights. Nobody today would imagine telling Christians they cannot exercise certain civil rights because of their religion; millions of Christians, and the entire political party that caters to them, think nothing of telling women and gays that they cannot control their own bodies, get married, get divorced, adopt children, or exercise myriad other civil and human rights, because of those Christians’ religious beliefs. And the Christians complain that they are being discriminated against in not being allowed to dictate their beliefs to others – and, again, they are taken seriously and deferred to in their repulsive insanity! Women were beaten and jailed for attempting to vote. They were beaten and jailed for wearing pants. Gays were routinely beaten and jailed for simply being in bars where they could be trapped by police, and sometimes killed. They were routinely beaten simply for being on the street. Claiming your victim was gay was for years a recognized legal defense to the crime of murder. Both a violent gay bar raid and the “gay panic defense” were both in the news as recently as two weeks ago. The Christian assault on marriage rights continues to this day, and is actively promoted by members of Congress and GOP presidential candidates. Nothing like any of this has ever been true for Christians.

But how do women and gays respond? Almost invariably, with restraint, dignity, and legality. Civil rights campaigns were conducted for decades – if not centuries, in one form or another – by both groups, almost entirely within the law, and without any form of organized violence or oppression. Legal reform was sought through legal channels, in the face of continued cynical denial and oppression, usually by mocking bigots citing Christianity as their justification. And when protests, marches, and other organized events were held, they were almost always undertaken through recognized legal processes – even when due process was often withheld to suppress those claims of right. Civil disobedience, when it occurred, was organized, purposeful, and accompanied by public acknowledgment of the transgression and willingness to accept the consequences. Their campaigns were aimed at gaining the right to be treated as equals under the law, not a demand to be exempt from it.

The contrast couldn’t be simpler, or more stark:

This clown in LA was subject to a trivial, and utterly ordinary, summons to a zoning board hearing to determine whether he needed a permit for his ongoing large gatherings in a restricted private residential area. He could have simply appeared at the meeting and explained himself. He refused to follow the established procedures, declared himself a victim, demanded special consideration, created a nation-wide outrage over an unbelievably unimportant issue, and was finally granted extraordinary special treatment from the mayor himself – all because of his insistence that the ordinary regulations that exist to enable neighbors to live together peaceably don’t apply to him because he is a Christian. All of this predicated upon his claims of “persecution”, as a member of the most coddled and privileged social group in the history of the country, over an utterly meaningless, and ordinary, civil procedure.

In that same county, every year, the gay community holds a large parade. It commemorates the day, barely one generation ago, that gay people in New York resisted a routine police beating imposed upon them solely because they were gay. They did not gain any legal rights that day, and the persecution did not stop. They simply refused to accept it quietly. That constitutes a (not legally recognized) holiday for this community. Like any parade, it is complicated and requires extensive planning and permitting. The organizers go through the entire process, without demur, every year, in complete cooperation with the city authorities. They pay fees, they file forms, they attend hearings. The city tells them where they can march, and for how long, and what they can do in conjunction. Note that there are Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free speech and free association, written into the very same sentence in the Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of religion – but reasonable people know that exercising any of those rights comes with an obligation of social responsibility, and can reasonably be regulated by the state. When feminist or gay-rights groups organize, they follow the established procedures and willingly comply with the regulations. In San Francisco, the gay community petitioned the police to meet with them to establish effective procedures and ensure that regulations were followed on both sides. There are many feminist day-care centers and health clinics, which are regulated to an extraordinary degree, all of which willingly and uncomplainingly comply with the legal norms.

The empirical history couldn’t be more clear. Women and gays have consistently been subject to thoroughgoing statutorial denials of basic rights, as well as unremitting violence, but have always worked within the legal system; in holding meetings and events or running organizations, they routinely cooperate with pervasive regulatory regimens without complaint. Christians as a group have every entitlement and privilege imaginable, and still aren’t satisfied; they consistently can’t bring themselves to follow the law or accept the same Constitutional framework everyone else lives with. This schmuck in LA, with the participation of thousands or more other Christians and their media allies, literally created a national issue, crying “discrimination”, over his petulant, self-absorbed refusal to attend a zoning board hearing.

Whiny, selfish asshole.

This pastor did not receive an exemption from any law. He was cited incorrectly according to the city and the bylaws of the city and the matter should have been dropped immediately by the city. Once the error was realized, the matter was dropped. The mayor got involved because of the publicity, yes, but it is no different than any other issue that gets wide-spread coverage. Politicians tend to step in to deal with things then.

Interesting how you managed to write so much and yet really say nothing other than “Christians bad and given special treatment”, “everyone else good”. Based on your answer I would be forced to think that you would support a gay group or a feminist group in the exact same situation the pastor found himself in meaning that for you it wasn’t following the law that was the issue but rather the group the person fighting it belongs to. Your bias against and hatred for Christians becomes more clear every time you post something regarding them. You realize Obama self-identifies as a Christian so in reality you are attacking him also which I find very interesting.

Christians all over the country follow laws all the time. They obey and respect them. In situations like this they are criticized because it is a rarity and it makes headlines.

The “Christian” holidays have been encoded into law for the benefit of “everyone”. You don’t have to be a Christian to get a day off for Christmas or Easter. Seems somewhat inclusive. The majority of the laws of the land find a big part of their base in the 10 commandments, thus they were put on courthouses, etc. decades ago.

It is unfortunate that your hatred for Christians and Christianity has blinded you to all the benefits they have brought to society. All of the world relief organizations, food banks, shelters, support groups, etc.