City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

a reply to: kaylaluv

There are anti-discrimination laws in place already. I'm getting sick of people demanding special treatment just because of their life style choice, or religion, etc. They are not special, no more than any one else.

If some one refuses to rent an apartment because that individual is black or gay or a woman, etc, then that individual should sue and possibly post on social media, and move on. Who in their right mind wants to live or do business where they're not wanted?.

If a proprietor wants to refuse money that's his/her business. Chances are that idiot that continues to refuse business, won't be in business much longer.

a reply to: xuenchen


Yea someone had to go in and give the mayor a history class and a tutorial on the constitution.

These are the Jack Boot gays folks warned about for years. Lunatic gay fringe.

a reply to: TDawgRex

The anti-discrimination laws are pretty specific - they don't include protection for gays, unless the city or state specifically includes them in their laws (i.e., HERO Act). Before HERO, gays had no legal recourse. A lawsuit wouldn't do any good, it would get thrown out. There was no legal precedent.

I don't see that people are demanding special treatment. I see them demanding EQUAL treatment. If a straight guy has no problem renting an apartment because he is straight, then a gay guy should have no problem renting an apartment because he is gay.

If a Christian can go into a fast food restaurant, then a Muslim should be able to go into a fast food restaurant. If a white can go into a restaurant , then a black should be able to as well. Same with straight and gay.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether a business can discriminate, but the laws regarding public accommodation are pretty clear. Don't think that the restaurants/hotels/stores that had to serve blacks during the 60's weren't upset about it at first. They WERE (there was probably some spit in some soups). But they got over it. Sometimes you've got to do a little forcing. The next generations won't have any problem serving gays, just like this generation doesn't have any problem serving blacks (most don't anyway).

a reply to: kaylaluv


Nothing you are talking about has anything to do with what the Mayor did here. She sought to violate constitutionally protected position. She's the one now that doesn't want to serve blacks! She's the violator. Folks can eat where and what they want but really cant tell the owner what to put on the menu.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: kaylaluv


Nothing you are talking about has anything to do with what the Mayor did here. She sought to violate constitutionally protected position. She's the one now that doesn't want to serve blacks! She's the violator. Folks can eat where and what they want but really cant tell the owner what to put on the menu.

The city was sued because they said the petition signatures were invalid. Part of their case, in their defense, is that the pastors organized the petition as part of their sermons. The city's argument is that this makes the signatures invalid, based on tax exempt regulations. Do you deny the city's fair trial? How can they have a fair trial if they aren't allowed to prove their case? How can they prove their case if they aren't allowed to gather any evidence?

"Jack Boot Gays" ... now what evidence do you have of ... oh wait, honestly, there was this leather club I went to that one time ...

Yuk yuk. Seriously though folks.

Nothing in the Constitution frees churches or pastors from obeying the law.

I personally think the Houston Mayor made a pretty boneheaded play, but really, cities, corporations, individuals, churches, etc. can all file subpoenas. It is a routine legal action.

Houston wasn't ready for the backlash of special interest groups seeking more rights than the rest of us.

Oh well, politics.

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL. Seriously though the supreme law, the constitution, prohibits this sort of intrusion on a church. We are not talking about a zoning violation here.

We talked about taxing the church in another thread. Anything that allows the government to dictate what is said from their constitutionally protected position is a violation of the law.

This mayor is constitutionally mad, crazy, as ignorant as a disco freak at a blue grass concert.

a reply to: Logarock

You won't mind quoting the part of the Constitution that says that churches don't have to obey laws, then?

That'd be great!

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL. Seriously though the supreme law, the constitution, prohibits this sort of intrusion on a church. We are not talking about a zoning violation here.

We talked about taxing the church in another thread. Anything that allows the government to dictate what is said from their constitutionally protected position is a violation of the law.

This mayor is constitutionally mad, crazy, as ignorant as a disco freak at a blue grass concert.

Wrong the government is not allowed to interfere with church as long as the church stays out of politics when it thinks it can get into politics then the government can get involved. This has already been discussed in another thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: buster2010

Well now we are getting somewhere. The church comes at the gay issue from a spiritual/moral issue not from politics.

And you are wrong and the church has been wrong if it thinks it is restricted from talking about ANYTHING because of an unconstitutional IRS categorization. This is modern myth. The constitution grants the church a bully pulpit free from government censure for ANY reason. 1st amendment. Freedom of speech and press in the same amendment.

The idea that churches must stay away from reading, promoting, verifying or defending any doctrine, position, idea political or otherwise would also then fall on the press. The same right that gives any rag or news outlet the power to say what it wants is the same one the church got. The rights of the press are also not subject to IRS categorization or censure.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

You won't mind quoting the part of the Constitution that says that churches don't have to obey laws, then?

That'd be great!

They certainly don't have to obey censure laws restricting their rights under the 1st amendment anymore the press does.

Censure laws violate the free exercise thereof ect. Whats so hard to understand about that unless you have a political philosophy that disregards the constitution.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

You won't mind quoting the part of the Constitution that says that churches don't have to obey laws, then?

That'd be great!

They certainly don't have to obey censure laws restricting their rights under the 1st amendment anymore the press does.

Censure laws violate the free exercise thereof ect. Whats so hard to understand about that unless you have a political philosophy that disregards the constitution.

Who is censoring them? The city is merely arguing that the petition is invalid. Churches can bash homosexuality all they want. They are protected.

a reply to: kaylaluv

They cant subpoena sermon records. This is an attempt to get them to watch what they say.

I was more impressed with how I can walk into a Houston womans bathroom as long as I'm wearing a wig! Yay for equality!

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: kaylaluv

They cant subpoena sermon records. This is an attempt to get them to watch what they say.

No, it's not. It's an attempt to gather information for a law suit. If the activist group hadn't sued them, the city wouldn't be asking for the sermon records. If it weren't for the law suit, the city wouldn't give a crap what the churches said about homosexuality.

a reply to: jheated5
No wig required, my friend

www.chron.com... houston-texas/houston/article/Mayor-set-to-make-announcement-on-sermon-subpoenas-5855458.php

Yesterday, Houston Mayor Annise Parker withdrew the city's HERO lawsuit related subpoenas served on five area pastors.

Looks like the next chapter of this story will be written during the January lawsuit that will determine if the original petition to put HERO to a vote is legit, or not.

I suspect that the petition will stand and the city will get slammed again and then again when HERO gets on the ballot a is widely rejected by the electorate.

Time will tell...but frankly I hope that's how it rolls out because I think HERO is a dumb law, passed by a dumb city council, while led by a less than competent mayor.

No, it's not. It's an attempt to gather information for a law suit. If the activist group hadn't sued them, the city wouldn't be asking for the sermon records. If it weren't for the law suit, the city wouldn't give a crap what the churches said about homosexuality.

This is true, but if the city had not declared the 50,000 signature petition, to put HERO to a vote of the people, invalid...then there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. THAT was the original city mis-step, especially since only 17,000 signatures are required to put the ordinance on the ballot.

In addition, I'm pretty sure that the mayor tabled the issue of HERO enforcement due to the certain legal challenge she knew was coming. HERO is not currently being enforced and the sky has yet to fall. It's an irrelevant ordinance to almost everyone except the mayor, her supporters and most of the LGBT community.

a reply to: jihadoflove

If it's such an irrelevant ordinance, why are there groups of "Christians" working so hard to stop it? It's relevant to them because it would mean they can no longer force gays out of jobs, apartment complexes, rental homes, restaurants and other public accommodations. Did the sky fall during Jim Crow law days? Maybe not, but I'm still glad they're gone.