City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

a reply to: guitarplayer

I've tried to find the answer to that question, and so far, it looks like none.

originally posted by: jihadoflove
a reply to: guitarplayer

I've tried to find the answer to that question, and so far, it looks like none.

It was a Christian group that was protesting the ordinance, and it was the Christian group that organized the petition, and I believe it was the Christian group that sued the city. Unless you can find evidence that anyone in the Houston Muslim community had anything to do with the protesting/petition/lawsuit.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You are correct, the vocal opposition has been primarily Christian oriented. The opposition group was not quite as ecumenical as I first assumed. I couldn't find info on Houston area, Muslim opinion on HERO, the "bathroom bill".

Common sense would lead me to believe that they were opposed.

However, if so, they certainly were not vocal in their opposition. So, obviously, no subpoena for them.

But, my biggest problem with this, aside from the ordinance itself, is that the pastors subpoena-d were not even parties to the lawsuit against the city for ignoring a 50,000+ petition to repeal the ordinance.

They simply organized the repeal petition, as used to be any citizen's right.

a reply to: jihadoflove

Yes, these particular pastors were not parties in the lawsuit, but they did organize the petitions. What the city is trying to prove in their case is that the petition signatures were not legally acquired. That is their right to assert this. Do you think it is not their right, as the party being sued? As part of their case, they need to have access to whatever means the pastors used to organize the petition.

Here is some additional information that I found quite helpful in looking at this situation.

As The Washington Post's Eugene Volokh explained, precedent suggests that information typically protected by the First Amendment can still be subpoenaed if it's relevant to a legal investigation. This is especially true in situations where sermons were recorded and distributed for public use.

The goal of the subpoenas is to gather information to support the city's case that HERO opponents behaved inappropriately when gathering signatures to repeal HERO. City Attorney David Feldman cited a training video showing one of the subpoenaed pastors explain the rules for signature gathering at a church presentation, pointing out that such "political speech" is fair game and might support the city's case for dismissing certain signatures.

It's not unusual for attorneys to request large amounts of information of plaintiffs and their associates in the discovery process, even if they expect those requests to be limited.

mediamatters.org...

a reply to: kaylaluv

Very well.

But, at the end of the day, the city is simply fishing because they know that the ordinance would not pass if put before the people.

No matter the outcome of this lawsuit, I personally don't think HERO will stand.

Why don't they just email it over?

I'm certain it will be read by the gov.

This is absolutely insane!

Isn't it her political party who argue fiercely in support of separation of church and state?

How is she allowed to do this?

a reply to: jihadoflove

As a Muslim, I would be opposed to it, although not perhaps for the reasons anyone would think. To be honest, this has nothing to do with gay or lesbian imho. I'm sure many Christians would feel the same.

This is saying, any man can walk into a woman's public restroom... that is not right. I'm sure there are men who are gay and think they are women and who may like to use the women's restroom... but since they aren't actually women, then they cannot.

That said, those people are going to be so few - that in the grand scheme of things I'd say they shouldn't be allowed, because what that will open the door for, is every pervert in Houston, which I'm sure far outnumber the gays, to be haunting women's public toilets trying to get their eyes full.

If I lived in Houston, I would never again feel safe going into a public restroom - Therefore I would never again go to the bathroom in public. There are enough dangers in this world... don't need to have one more.

a reply to: StarGazer77

I believe fear of Islam has meant that people gave away their rights. It looks like in the process, they gave away the right to separation of church and state. Or so the city of Houston thinks anyway...

I would challenge it in supreme court. It's not the business of the state what the Sunday sermon is... This lends a lot of credence to all the conspiracy theories saying that Islam was never as bad as people thought, the government just wanted people scared of something so they could take your rights.

I'd say this here is proof of that conspiracy theory, more than anything else.

originally posted by: jihadoflove

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

I would wait for the most public, opportune moment and then troll the # out of the Mayor, the courts and the city's attorneys...

"Of course I'll get those sermons to you. Wait, I'm getting a call.......Oh noes! My hard drive crashed and the back up tapes were recycled! Oh well, what difference does it make? Let go have a beer and try to move on."

After all, turnabout is fair play, right?

a reply to: Lipton

This is a non story now as the Mayor has dropped her quest...for now.

I read a story where there was a petition with over 50,000 signatures, bibles and other Holy Texts being sent to her office, loads of letter and probably even more emails.

She capitulated.

But the real issue is that the city council acted on the HERO act and the people were not allowed to vote on it. Just more idiots who think being elected gives them blanket power.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Lipton

This is a non story now as the Mayor has dropped her quest...for now.

I read a story where there was a petition with over 50,000 signatures, bibles and other Holy Texts being sent to her office, loads of letter and probably even more emails.

She capitulated.

But the real issue is that the city council acted on the HERO act and the people were not allowed to vote on it. Just more idiots who think being elected gives them blanket power.

I thought the city just agreed to narrow the scope of what they were requiring. Also, if I'm not mistaken, they took out the specific "bathroom" clause from the act, just to appease the fear mongers.

I don't believe people should get to vote on whether they can discriminate against others. That's why Jim Crow laws were forced out. Hope they don't ever put Jim Crow laws up to a vote in the South. They might actually get voted for in some states!

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep, you are correct. The HERO act is still going to be enforced. Just not as draconian as it was first put out. I think that the law was actually a act of discrimination against those who disagreed with what was in the law. Forced compliance, so to speak. Very 1984 IMO.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep, you are correct. The HERO act is still going to be enforced. Just not as draconian as it was first put out. I think that the law was actually a act of discrimination against those who disagreed with what was in the law. Forced compliance, so to speak. Very 1984 IMO.

Just because people disagree with a law doesn't mean the law is wrong. Lots of people disagreed with laws outlawing slavery. They "disagreed" so much, it caused a war. Now, everyone agrees that slavery is wrong.

If you think the bathroom part of the act was the only thing the christian group was against, you are sadly mistaken.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I just hate new laws being put into place when there are already laws that exist that already cover a myriad of offenses.

Stop making new laws and actually enforce the ones on the books. And if a law is being selectively enforced, then maybe it's time for that law to be removed from the books.

Seems like all our elected officials want to make new laws all the time, when in actuality, they need to be removing a good portion of them that make no sense in todays world.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is total BS these days. Judges and Lawyers have reams of books and staff to help them in their jobs. Why do they have all that? Because they are ignorant of the law.

If a law says we are all equal, then we are all equal. Period. Forced compliance builds resentment and eventually backlash, which is happening now.

I absolutely despise any law that gives a group of people privilege over others because of race, ideology (religious or political), lifestyle choice, etc, etc...

If people are bent out of shape over the bathroom thing, I don't know why. Just put in the building codes that a third bathroom be put in that is Co-ed. It'll put people to work designing, building them and keeping them clean.

I'm getting sick of the PC world.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Okay, so you aren't in favor of discrimination, you just don't want new laws outlawing discrimination?

What existing law is there that says we are all equal? Are you talking about the Constitution saying all men are created equal? Are you talking about the 14th amendment that says everyone deserves equal protection under the law, or are you against the 14th amendment as well?

I sort of agree with you that we shouldn't have to have a bunch of separate laws saying the same thing. It's just unfortunate that people have a tendency to be hateful against others who are different from them. It's been happening since mankind has been around. What to do about it?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TDawgRex

Okay, so you aren't in favor of discrimination, you just don't want new laws outlawing discrimination?

What existing law is there that says we are all equal? Are you talking about the Constitution saying all men are created equal? Are you talking about the 14th amendment that says everyone deserves equal protection under the law, or are you against the 14th amendment as well?

I sort of agree with you that we shouldn't have to have a bunch of separate laws saying the same thing. It's just unfortunate that people have a tendency to be hateful against others who are different from them. It's been happening since mankind has been around. What to do about it?

The US Constitution is a mere handful of pages and is quite blunt as well. Yet there are millions of books and rulings defining what it all means. Tell me being a lawyer (which most politicians are) isn't a great scam. um...no wait.

People are going to hate others regardless. You can't legislate it away. And trying to usually increases the hate and anger on both sides.

originally posted by: TDawgRex

The US Constitution is a mere handful of pages and is quite blunt as well. Yet there are millions of books and rulings defining what it all means. Tell me being a lawyer (which most politicians are) isn't a great scam.

um...no wait.

People are going to hate others regardless. You can't legislate it away. And trying to usually increases the hate and anger on both sides.

No, you can't stop hate. But you can stop actions, like slavery, murder, mistreatment of people, etc. Well, you can't totally stop them, but you can punish people under the law for those actions.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
No, you can't stop hate. But you can stop actions, like slavery, murder, mistreatment of people, etc. Well, you can't totally stop them, but you can punish people under the law for those actions.

And we do have laws already on the books to punish such actions. How does creating a special law for only a certain class of people help?

There are laws that already address every issue that the HERO covers. Creating new laws that are redundant only create the loopholes that every one claims to hate.

a reply to: TDawgRex

So, what existing law in the city of Houston helps a gay person who is refused an apartment or a house solely on the basis of him being gay? What existing law helps a gay person who is fired when the fact that he is gay becomes public? What recourse does a gay person have right now in Houston when he is refused entrance to a restaurant for no other reason except he is gay?