Eviction Thread For Home Bible Study

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by JenFred

Peter, in the pdf linked above is where there is info on why they were told to stop.

I read that pdf. Did not read anything like what you summarized below.

Originally Posted by JenFred

They took over the common community area and held counselings and such....to the point that the people with the scheduled birthday parties were not allowed to use the common room for them. ...But then we also weren't running a church 7 days a week from those places. And that's what this sounds like has happened.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer

This guy is holding himself out as a Pastor. He is mis-using rental property to run a church. The other residents are complaining and moving out so, it in fact is unruly enough that the landlord feels he has to act. It will be up to the courts, but if you read the complaint it is more than bible study, it is counseling, religious movie nights and proselytizing other residents.

Imagine for a moment that he was not a Pastor but a clinical psychologist and would have group therapy sessions and AA meetings weekly in the common areas. It would be a commercial endeavor and violate the rules. Churches are commercial endeavors.

A house in my part of town was undergoing renovations. It started to look weird like a dollar store with parking outside. I checked, the residents of this single family house are turning it into a church. The building permit lists it as an expansion to a single family residence. It is not zoned for commercial, it is a residential location and there are no shortages of churches in the area. Parking and traffic will be a problem for the residents nearby this new "church".

http://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/c...ng-ordinances/

I led a Bible study from my rental home in La Habra, CA for several years. I neither held myself out as a pastor nor was I doing damage or otherwise misusing the rental property. It wasn't a "for profit" endeavor nor did I disturb my neighbors. I wasn't aware that learning & reading from the Bible had to take place within particular "zones." That sounds a bit Romanesque to me.

[JenFred]

On the pdf, the 2nd paragraph....the looong paragraph, about 2/3 of the way thru that paragraph, there's a sentence with the word counseling in quotes, twice I think, and that sentence says that the counseling sessions were occurring during other people's scheduled activities, and that he was preventing those residents from entering the community room....even though they had scheduled an activity during that time. The pdf states that the community room can be used for certain activities, provided that the residents schedule them in advance, and are approved.

[Nomad, 2nd]

Originally Posted by JenFred

At first glance, this seems like an oh no. But they abused the situation. It wasn't just a little Bible study gathering at their apt. They took over the common community area and held counselings and such....to the point that the people with the scheduled birthday parties were not allowed to use the common room for them. From the eviction notice they received, it seems they weren't allowing scheduled events to happen. Their ministry was trumping all else at the apt/condo/whatever. The community room was FOR the community, yet they were treating it as it belonged only to them...and this is where it became an issue. d.

should they not of used the community area for their comunity?
did they not have rights as renters?


Simple solution:

Everyone gets 1.

To get 2, your 2nd needs to not conflict with anyone's #1.

Too get 3 you need to not conflict with anyone's #2.

Since people pay monthly, that's how often you start over with 1.
1's...first come first serve. 2's... Same.

A simple administrative rulling with some basic logic solves the entire "issue"

[hawk55732]

Originally Posted by Nomad, 2nd

should they not of used the community area for their comunity?
did they not have rights as renters?


Simple solution:

Everyone gets 1.

To get 2, your 2nd needs to not conflict with anyone's #1.

Too get 3 you need to not conflict with anyone's #2.

Since people pay monthly, that's how often you start over with 1.
1's...first come first serve. 2's... Same.

A simple administrative rulling with some basic logic solves the entire "issue"

From my understanding of the situation, the common area was a reserved area. He would be using it when others had it reserved and not letting them use it.

[Nomad, 2nd]

Originally Posted by hawk55732

From my understanding of the situation, the common area was a reserved area. He would be using it when others had it reserved and not letting them use it.

Seemed mixed and don't see how this would involve the "will kick them out if they do it in their legal residence"

if they can't follow the rules (that's true) ...not saying it is or isn't.
Kick em.

[PurpleKitty]

If you're going to evangelize, you have to be a decent human being and respect others. Who's going to say no to a scheduled birthday party and tell them to go elsewhere? These guys, apparently.

It is about respecting your neighbor. It is one thing to have a quiet session on your own property that does not affect your neighbors. It is quite another when little Jimmy can't have his SCHEDULED birthday party because you were "counseling" or whatever.

Many "churches" are becoming cheap and refusing to rent a building. There was another thread on this recently and I said it sounded like my sister's cult, this is something they would absolutely do, hog the common room and not allow people to have their scheduled events because they were "praising" or whatever. They were also (I experienced plenty of these services in my life) very loud and disruptive screaming during the service.

I have zero sympathy for people like that.

CS, it depends on the chick tract. I was given some that were "fine" and I handed them out to my drivers. Some I felt were not appropriate and I held back. But I think kids old enough to read are old enough to understand unsaved sinners will go to hell when they die.

Edit to add, I hand out a tract on Halloween (in a generous bag of candy) that says just that - unsaved sinners go to hell, 10 commandments, tribulation, etc.

[Watchingtheweasels]

Originally Posted by NCalHippie

What if someone was holding prayers to Allah? Would that be alright?

That would probably depend on whether they went out and killed their neighbors after prayer time was over.

[merlinfire]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

Freedom of worship is like freedom of the press. It means the government can't stop you... not that you are free to do whatever you want. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you can use your apartment building's copier for free to run off your newsletter and shove it under the door of every apartment and leave it under the wipers of every car in the lot.

From the scant news I have read, it appears the Bible Study was using communal space and annoying residents. I hope and assume the management tried means short of an eviction threat to resolve the problem before it came to this.

Apply that logic to denying service for being black, or homosexual.

According to you, if every apartment-complex in the country signed a compact to not allow people to worship God on their property, and every rental space signed the same compact, and every HOA had the rule, then the only way you could worship is if you owned property, but if you were poor, you would not be able to worship at all. No government interference. Isn't that the same logic used to justify protected classes? What if every bakery refused to make the cake? What if every restaurant refused to let them eat?

But if you were a homosexual, you could demand anyone make you a cake, right?

Rights for thee and not for me? Get out of here with that hypocrisy.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by JenFred

They took over the common community area and held counselings and such....to the point that the people with the scheduled birthday parties were not allowed to use the common room for them. ...But then we also weren't running a church 7 days a week from those places. And that's what this sounds like has happened.

Originally Posted by JenFred

On the pdf, the 2nd paragraph....the looong paragraph, about 2/3 of the way thru that paragraph, there's a sentence with the word counseling in quotes, twice I think,

I re-read the paragraph. It says nothing about using the common area 7 days a week.

Regarding the allegation that people who reserved the common room were not allowed to use it; that seems highly doubtful.

1st, the 85-year old couple has no such power.
2nd, a timely complaint to the staff should settle the matter.

I had this funny experience at work one time. I was in a conference room preparing the A/V for a meeting in a few minutes. The HR lady barged in and asked if I was using this room for the next hour. I said yes. She then asked if I had reserved the room.

This tells me that she did not reserve the room. If she attempted to, she would have realized that I had reserved the room. In addition, the conference room could have been renamed my room for I had reserved the room and held meetings on that date and time every week for the last 6 months!

Imagine getting to a conference room 2nd and expecting to use the room of someone already there who had reserved the room? There is a certain audacity that I can relate to about this story. Since the common area could be reserved and the Bible Study leader supposedly had all these regularly scheduled meetings, it seems him reserving the room to be a pretty simple solution.

Maybe the company only takes reservations for the "special occasions" listed, e.g. birthday, wedding, funerals. However, that seems unlikely as it would prevent all these problems.

The biggest thing is to not accept the Complaint pdf as the statement of truth. Written by a lawyer, it couched facts in light most unfavorable to the 85-year old couple. Furthermore, it does not address the Constitutional objection to having Bible study in their own apartment. Remember, this story is because the 85-year old couple filed a federal law suit, not that they are being evicted. Said differently, the 85-year old couple is the Plaintiff in the federal Complaint, not the Defendant.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by merlinfire

Apply that logic to denying service for being black, or homosexual.

Rights for thee and not for me? Get out of here with that hypocrisy.

Property rights only matter to Leftists when it supports Leftist causes. For instance, Muslim taxi drivers have no legal burden to transport people who have or products (from a store) that are made from pork due to their religious beliefs. Baking a cake, on the other hand ...

[LibShooter]

Originally Posted by merlinfire

According to you, if every apartment-complex in the country signed a compact to not allow people to worship God on their property, and every rental space signed the same compact, and every HOA had the rule, then the only way you could worship is if you owned property, but if you were poor, you would not be able to worship at all.

This is a poor analogy. The couple in question face eviction because they are abusing the COMMUNAL areas of their apartment complex for their Bible study, making it difficult for other residents to use and enjoy those communal areas. So, if every apartment complex made a rule that you can't hold church services in the lobby and every HOA made a rule against holding a weekly tent revival in the cul-de-cac, that would be a better analogy and very reasonable. That way, poor folks could still worship at church or inside their homes... you know... like they do now.

No government interference. Isn't that the same logic used to justify protected classes? What if every bakery refused to make the cake? What if every restaurant refused to let them eat?

The apartment management is not refusing service, it is refusing to allow them to use their facilities in a way that is inconsistent with their NORMAL business. If the couple in question entered a restaurant, they would be served if they came to enjoy a meal at their table. However, if they came to the restaurant to hold their Bible study class, they could be asked to leave.

But if you were a homosexual, you could demand anyone make you a cake, right?

If you're homosexual, or a christian bible study teacher, you can go to a bakery and expect them to serve you in the same manner they would serve anyone else. That means, if you would bake a cake for one customer, you should bake a cake for the other customer. However, if you're a baker, you should not have to turn a corner of your store over to a couple getting married OR to a couple holding a bible study.

Likewise, if you own an assisted living facility, you should be required to offer both couples your services. Either couple should be and would be welcome to live there. However, neither couple should be or would be allowed to continually monopolize the communal areas of the community for their individual purposes.

[merlinfire]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

This is a poor analogy. The couple in question face eviction because they are abusing the COMMUNAL areas of their apartment complex for their Bible study, making it difficult for other residents to use and enjoy those communal areas. So, if every apartment complex made a rule that you can't hold church services in the lobby and every HOA made a rule against holding a weekly tent revival in the cul-de-cac, that would be a better analogy and very reasonable. That way, poor folks could still worship at church or inside their homes... you know... like they do now.




The apartment management is not refusing service, it is refusing to allow them to use their facilities in a way that is inconsistent with their NORMAL business. If the couple in question entered a restaurant, they would be served if they came to enjoy a meal at their table. However, if they came to the restaurant to hold their Bible study class, they could be asked to leave.



If you're homosexual, or a christian bible study teacher, you can go to a bakery and expect them to serve you in the same manner they would serve anyone else. That means, if you would bake a cake for one customer, you should bake a cake for the other customer. However, if you're a baker, you should not have to turn a corner of your store over to a couple getting married OR to a couple holding a bible study.

Likewise, if you own an assisted living facility, you should be required to offer both couples your services. Either couple should be and would be welcome to live there. However, neither couple should be or would be allowed to continually monopolize the communal areas of the community for their individual purposes.

I'm going to assume you did not read the article, because otherwise you're deliberately lying about the details of the incident in an attempt to push your agenda.

[LibShooter]

Originally Posted by merlinfire

I'm going to assume you did not read the article, because otherwise you're deliberately lying about the details of the incident in an attempt to push your agenda.

I'm going to assume you haven't read the article I posted which tells some of the apartment management side of the story. Here's that:
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values...lex-files-suit

Nor, I assume have you read the notice from the apartment management complex spelling out their complaint. Here's that:
https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/...e_Redacted.pdf

[PurpleKitty]

Peter, I had a Little Cesar's pizza when I called a cab. The driver came to get us and asked what was on the pizza. I told him it was a meatllover and he said he could take us but the pizza would have to ride in the trunk.

My husband didn't like it but I understood and shut up my husband, and we got a ride home.

I have no problem accommodating another's faith when they are sharing their property (cab) with us. I understood the cab driver was the property owner.

Yellow cab had an incident some years back, a muslim driver picked up a gay couple (men) and they were making out in the cab. The driver asked them to stop and they got worse, so he pulled over and put them out on the street. The gays tried to make it a "civil rights issue" but Yellow, and the DA both said the cab was his property and he could do whatever he wanted.

The driver also said he had put out straight couples for "immorality" in his cab as well, but they didn't complain.

I really resent (as you have seen) people who take advantage of others "Because Jesus". It is like one woman I knew was always asking for "no ticket approvals" and "straight trips" 'Because I am the wife of a pastor". She would sing gospel songs in the cab (not very well, my husband said) and put up this holy, perfect, front, while asking everyone to bend over for her.

One day I saw her at the grocery store, she was in a very bad mood. She was very bitter because her husband had been arrested and jailed. "For what?" "Back child support". Mr Holy and perfect couldn't even take care of his own kids, and they were bringing in some money. She acted as if the DA should throw out all the charges "because he was a pastor". It doesn't work that way.

If anything, believers are held to a higher standard of conduct than a non believer.

[merlinfire]

Originally Posted by LibShooter

I'm going to assume you haven't read the article I posted which tells some of the apartment management side of the story. Here's that:
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values...lex-files-suit

Nor, I assume have you read the notice from the apartment management complex spelling out their complaint. Here's that:
https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/...e_Redacted.pdf

Are you missing the part where they're also not being allowed to do it in their own apartment, either?

[PurpleKitty]

IMO they have burned so many bridges with management they're lucky they can flush their toilet. There is a right and a wrong way to go about it.

Generally speaking, I ride frequently with muslims or non believers. We respect each other and go out of the way for each other. I do not club them over the head with a Bible. They know I am a believer and I am happy to talk about my faith WHEN ASKED but I do not use it as a club to go around beating people.

I believe this couple has done exactly that and have burned their bridges with the management and other residents. Generally speaking business owners do not want troublemakers around. That is just good business.

[LibShooter]

Originally Posted by merlinfire

Are you missing the part where they're also not being allowed to do it in their own apartment, either?

The actual notice mentions activities held in the "Community Room" and the prohibition (in the lease signed by the couple) of seeing clients in their apartment.

[PeterEnergy]

Originally Posted by PurpleKitty

If anything, believers are held to a higher standard of conduct than a non believer.

You certainly are holding the 85-year old couple to a higher standard.

Originally Posted by merlinfire

Are you missing the part where they're also not being allowed to do it in their own apartment, either?

To my way of thinking, this case indicates the double standards have gone too far in accommodating minority religions, like Islam, being taught in Southern schools, while holding Christianity to a higher standard of conduct, in not being given much accommodation at all. See 10 Commandments removed from school.

Originally Posted by PurpleKitty

IMO they have burned so many bridges with management

Never the issue. I recently talked to a pastor about Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40 & Luke 11:23. He said they say the same thing but differently, if you are not for us, you are against us; there is no middle ground.

While I rail against proselytizers, I don't see that here - certainly not as an eviction level action.

[JenFred]

The 7 days a week was me using exaggeration. Yet not by much. From what was stated in the pdf....they weren't doing a once a week study. It was Bible study class on one day, Sunday night religious films, and then counseling sessions at other times/days...so at the very least, using the community room 3 days a week. My guess is that it was more than 3 days. As Purple Kitty said, they burned their bridges, which is why they cannot even hold a study in their apt now. Their lack of consideration for others is what caused this....NOT that they are Christians wanting to hold a Bible study. This isn't religious persecution....this is them being inconsiderate and overstepping their boundaries. And being jerks.

We've attended and held Bible studies at various places, in various countries, and have never heard word one against what we were doing. Because the people hosting and the people attending weren't jerks. A friend hosts a Bible club for the kids in her apt bldg. This is an upscale apt bldg...they are prolly considered "condos". She does it in her home, and they often go play at the common playground after (without the lessons held AT the playground). She invites people....but if they don't want their kids to attend....she loves on those families without beating them up about their lack of attending. She knows the names of all the kiddos in the bldgs around her + the names (and stories) of most of their parents. Cause she is kind, because she loves, because she knows that being a jerk is rude. Also, no one is inconvenienced by her having the club in her apt. And she's not having her Bible lessons on the playground....so that other beliefs aren't bothered by her/the kids.

I have a friend who is an atheist. She and her dd once tried to play at a local playground. There was a group there having a prayer walk with their kids....and they got mad at my friend and her kiddo for daring to play on the playground while they attempted this with their kids. There was yelling involved. And total rudeness. It was a public playground....so no "rules" against daring to play while people tried to teach their kids religion. As a Christ-follower, I was angry at those parents who started to do a good thing (teaching their kids about prayer and such), but in carrying it out, decided that their religious practices were more impt than other people.