re: In Montreal, you can’t have a Christian singer have a worship service in a Church

quote:

---

This seems to directly address the same concept as general applicability of event permits.

---

What?
That was rejected like 2 paragraphs later.

quote:

---

I find this case to be very different than Hutterian. In Hutterian, the cost imposed by the law was of a secular nature. To adhere to the religion was to forego the requirements for a valid driver’s licence. The effect of religious belief was to require alternate forms of transport. While this had the potential to breach the insularity of the community, the cost of not driving was extraneous to the religious experience itself. Persons faced with a choice between their religious tenets and the right to drive were free to choose their religious tenets. There are any number of analogous costs flowing from religious adherence. Where religious practice conflicts with another activity, the answer may be to give up the other activity, that being the cost of the religious beliefs.

[97] In this case, holding multiple services might involve expenditure of time, effort, and money. However, beyond those secular considerations, multiple services would also alter the character of the religious experience itself. Gathering restrictions prevent congregants from gathering as a single group in one place, at one time, for communal worship. This burden impacts directly and significantly on the ability of the churches and their congregants to manifest and practice their religious beliefs.

---

quote:

---

And here's another one who historically has trouble with simple concepts

---

No, I understand completely that you’re a big government authoritarian boot licker.

quote:

---

Youve done just that in this thread,

---

Only once, in the post above (which you didn't quote in your response)

I'm not the biggest fan of local zoning/permitting, but I hate people who are allowed to game the actual system we all live in by lying worse.

Because you're calling it a ruse. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are posting from a place of anger for being ridiculous.

Is it a ruse anytime someone finds a loophole around a random and arbitrary law? Is it a ruse to pay less taxes if you donate to a charity you don't actually care about?

These people were denied their permit at a public venue, and in an apparent moment of naivety, figured a church gathering with a singer couldn't possibly apply to permitting laws. Because they probably do it all the time without issue.

quote:

---

Depends if the law infringes on their rights.

---

Someone posted a case and I literally quoted the applicable portion of their law. It's a page or so back.

The government at the time didn’t like Jesus too much either.

quote:

---

Because you're calling it a ruse.

---

Well they knew they needed the permit, changed nothing else but the venue, and then pretend they didn't need a permit.

quote:

---

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are posting from a place of anger

---

Only logic (see above).

quote:

---

Is it a ruse anytime someone finds a loophole

---

They didn't do this, though. They tried to lie, which is an entirely different thing.

Anyone can create a "loophole" by lying. Want to buy beer under 21? Just lie and say you're 21. Loophole! See how silly that is?

quote:

---

Is it a ruse to pay less taxes if you donate to a charity you don't actually care about?

---

Sincerity in the organization's purpose isn't a requirement for receiving tax benefits; only giving the money to the properly-structured organization.

quote:

---

and in an apparent moment of naivety

---

They were literally told they needed a permit prior to the event. Even your spin doesn't work. The "naivety" excuse ends once they're informed.

quote:

---

You posted a part of the state claim that the Canadian courts rejected only a little further down.

---

This seems somewhat relevant

quote:

---

Social media lied to you. You posted it without doing research. Just own it.

---

quote:

---

So you're admitting they're just engaging in a ruse, to skirt governmental rules.

---

Or vice versa.

The ruse may have been them going along to get along originally and when the state wouldn’t allow that they tried to get it seen for what it was

This type of Christian singer and genre (if sincere about why they are singing the type of music they do) considers every “concert” a worship service and some have altar calls etc much more in line with a traditional service.

Moving the venue to a church. In a rural area. It may have been a sincere effort for the state to see that it is more appropriate to be seen as a worship service.


The bigger question is why the city didn’t grant them a permit in the first place if what I read in here earlier about them being denied is true.