There's no "equating," it is a church, and thus subject to rules and regulations for assemblies.Personally, I want to see more of the actual evidence the city has from their 90 minute search of his property to see if they actually found evidence he was holding services inside the rec room, and not using it for people to get together after services to watch moves and play Pinochle.
There's no question that the man is running a church. The issue is if the city has the right to equate his church with public or commercial assemblies.
Centuries of caselaw disagree with you.As a private or non-commercial church, on residential property, the answer is no.
Please cite the relevant laws you're claiming.Legitimately, to the city, it's just a bible study or a book club.
It's not. It's applying standard zoning laws. He declared it a tax exempt church, and so no longer private activities.The government has no constitutional or moral right to apply religious tests to this man's private activities.
then change the laws. As the laws stand, they apply to any public assembly building.The city's claim that there's safety issues is also absurd. It's a one-room building. Safety doesn't require sprinklers. If there's a fire, everyone will see it right away and everyone will be able to safely leave through one of the two doors. It's not like people could get trapped inside because of a fire.