sam12six, on 24 February 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:
As I said, their impact on the community is moot. The codes were adopted to prevent religious gatherings from having negative impacts on the area. The law could be bad, poorly written, or simply misapplied in this case. Again, these things are relatively straightforward to work out at the local level simply by demonstrating that there is no negative impact or lobbying to change the law.
Religious organizations are a different beast legally from purely social or business gatherings. Because of this, there are differences in how they are regulated. Is it business persecution that businesses are not tax exempt like churches? No, it's a different type of legal entity. Is it religious persecution that a church cannot operate out of a private home the way a business could? No, it's a different legal entity.
As far as the legality of your gaming nights. Your community apparently didn't have codes against such gatherings. At the most local level, Homeowners Associations, there are very often covenants that massively restrict the freedoms of people in the neighborhood - from how many cars can be parked on your property to what colors you can and can't paint your house, even how long your grass can be. Again, the options are comply, work to change the restriction, or break it and accept the fine.
Whatever your personal opinions concerning what activities and implications define a church, the county in question has their own legal definition. Lots of laws define any 4 legged animal as "cattle". In those cases, claiming your yard full of llamas aren't covered because YOU don't consider them cattle is just silly. Like it or not, you're subject to the legal definitions laid down in the applicable codes.
No one is saying (or at least not me) that there aren't such laws in some places. My point is that they are bad and wrong laws; constructed poorly and applied badly. To take some of your above points. Parking actually is a physicala problem and most places regulate it (so there don't need to be other laws trying to restrict people entering or parking in an area)
The colour issue is about mainting the value of peoples properties either historical or financial It is arguably an ethically based law (see beleow) BUT a law that simply said all houses had to be red, would be a wrong law. A law where grass had to be cut for fire mitigation is a logical law, with good reason. A law that says all people must trim their lawns to a certain height for aesthetic purposes is wrong. It impinges on peoples' aesthetic values and imposes finanacial costs without good reasons.
It might perhaps also impact on the commercia value of properties. But actually neither state nor municipaa authorities have any moral right to insist on a certain aesthetic value for an area. The reason is almost always commercial, eg maintaing values to increase rates and taxes or a form of snobbish materialism, which judges people on the appearance of their possessions. That is not a moral reason to insist that people mow their lawns. It is also inequitable and discriminatory against people who cant afford the machinery required to do this, or to hire people to do it for them.
It creates exclusive enclaves of people, which is not good for society. Just because 90 % of peole in a neighbourhood, want to have their houses look a certain way does not give them a moral right to impose those standards on others and thus it SHOULD NOT be alloewed to give them a legal right to do so.
I love it when govt's place indigenous or community housing in the middle of such enclaves of the wealthy,
( a very deliberate policy supporting integration of poorer and indigenous people into wealthier communities in australia rather than leaving them in "ghettos" of govt housing)
and we sit back and watch the reactions. The people dont have the same materialist values as their neighbours, although they are generally good and moral people. They dont have the money to keep to the standards required by resident inspired laws, even if they had any desire to spend money on such cosmetic things, and because the houses are usually govt owned, no one can compel compliance. Its a real hoot.
Your point of "in house" parking is a very interesting one. I suspect a person could keep 24 prestige cars on their property in a large garage, while his neighbur could not park 4 cars out in his yard without the first neighbour comlaining that it created a "bad look"..
Again, a socially discriminatory law, based on social values, not on moral ones. People need to begin disobeying these laws, refusing to pay the fines, and fighting to have them overturned. At the next election, toss out the tossers who created them, and elect some more ethical representatives.
Edited by Mr Walker, 25 February 2012 - 12:41 AM.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
4
RAW Berris... Dare you enter?
) and a number of other incidents where christians are being called potential terrorists... oh the list goes on and on.
