Middle Age Geeks

My brother-in-law lives in Carrolton and has friends that work at the local newspaper there. He emailed me this article from it about Dragon Hills.

http://www.times-georgian.com/view/full ... mit-denial?

I'm wondering whether or not they allow other churches in the area to use buildings in a similar manner. If not, I wouldn't consider this a constitutional infringement. If so, it's a big example of prejudice. Myself, I'd have to reserve judgment until that information was known.

A pagan church in GEORGIA!? I mean c'mon here. Use some common sense. You're in the middle of the bible belt and you actually think people are gonna be open to you opening a Pagan Church in this Baptist state? Yea, smart fucking move Dragon Hills.

FTFY

Freedom of religion, you know. That doesn't just apply to one or two religions, regardless of location.

Apparently, they've considered it "church property" for a while now. The sacred circle on top of the hill and all that. The real issue seems to be whether or not they can claim an exemption for some of the structures they've put up on the site.

Hey, all I was saying was we are in Georgia. Its a Baptist fucking state. HELLO!!!??? NO ALCHOHAL SOLD ON SUNDAY!!! And you're gonna try to claim a Pagan Church exempt status in THIS state? Yea....fuckin A right. Them good ol boys with their white sheets and bibles out there in Bowdon ain't gonna allow that shit.

And SM. We both know it has DICK to do with some housing zone issue, no matter how many fucking times they quote that shit.

I've seen it too many times in this rotten infested shit hole of a state.

That's why I was saying it all comes down to whether or not other religious organizations have been allowed the same exemption. If so, they have no legal reason to deny it to James and Rita and it's a bald-faced infraction of their constitutional rights. If not, they're discriminating against everyone equally and that can usually be legally justified.

Is it even legal to use storage structures (sheds) as temporary housing (cabins)? I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, but am honestly curious.

Could it be just a matter of someone put the cart before the horse and didn't check local zoning laws first? And now that it's an issue, the religion card has also come into play?

If other religious institutions have been allowed to use storage structures as housing in the same zoning situation, then yes, I would cry a religious intolerance foul. Otherwise, that is a mistake on Dragon Hill's part to not check codes first, and personally, as a Heathen, I would be offended they would try to hide their oversight behind the religion card.

Hope to see you guys soon!

It sounds pretty cut and dry to get at least one more vote, remove the clause to use the sheds as temporary housing. I doubt those things are actually up to residential code, so maybe they can get that part of the permit after taking them up to code.

Yeah this reeks of crusader BS. They are trying to restrict the expansion of an ideal they don't agree with, yes it was to be expected, but damnit I hope they fight this because a win here would probably shut them up with their you don't fight on our spiritual team crap.

Guys, while I agree that conservative crowd in and around Bowdon are making this harder, they cannot go against freedom of religion. The religion part is truly secondary in this case, I believe. The main issue is that they allowed people to take up residence on-site in buildings designed to used for storage. Then they went to get the permits for said residence to be on designated farm land. So Xero was right, they put the cart before the horse. They tried to do things on the cheap, and help some folks out at the same time.

From the way it reads to me, I agree. It can certainly be used as a hot button to add some controversy to the case, but it seems as if the housing codes are the real issue here. Although, if exemptions of the same type are made for other religious groups, that would definitely put a 1st Amendment spin on the case.

Yeah any lawyer worth his weight in salt should be able to spin that.

Well, we don't know how much they spun it to make it look like its not a religious issue. It could have been that they already decided no for their personal reasons and needed something to cite so they don't get caught and can still get their agendas moving.