If not, then the government has much greater lead way at distinguishing between this use and the normal type of gatherings that occur at a person's primary residence. The Constitution of the United States provides substantial protection for house meetings and gatherings in one's own residence. The government is forbidden from discriminating based on the speech content of the house meeting. In addition, the government must have a legitimate basis for classifying one group for different treatment than another. The government does not have a legitimate interest in applying stricter requirements on gatherings with religious purposes than it does on gatherings with secular purposes.
Heighten protection is available to one's primary residence.
Furthermore, the government is prohibited from regulating a house meeting in a person's primary residence because the meeting is related to an organization. The U.S. Supreme Court's current jurisprudence regarding the free exercise of religion does not provide substantial protection to house meetings unless it can be coupled with the violation of other fundamental rights. As discussed supra, there are several fundamental Constitutional liberties that do provide substantial protection for house meetings. However, one must show that these liberties are being substantially burdened before the Free Exercise Clause will bring protection. As some homeowner associations have become intolerant of minor house alterations, and governments feel the pressure to respond to every citizen complaint, it is of great importance that foundational, inalienable rights do not become trampled or forgotten.