O-Twink to have Anti-Gay Pastor give prayer at innaugaration

[RRKore]

Absolute horse manure.  With one exception (the resident lying liar), anytime someone asks me to read something on here, I do.  But I can see you are full of crap.  It's ok.  You saved yourself some embarrassment for the day.   

I'm not full of crap.  Since you seem to be saying that you will read it, here's the article.  

(It came across my FB feed a few days ago and took me a while to find it -- I had to wade through way too much crap from the females in my family to find it again, lol.)

I'm not trying to change your mind about whether Pastors' sermons are protected or not, I'm just trying to give you a better account of this story than what you've posted.  To be honest, I think the national coverage of this story has been crappy on the right and the left;  Before I saw the article that I've posted below I think I came across 3 or 4 articles about it (not including your confusing posts) and couldn't figure out what the hell was going on.

The Real Reason Houston Subpoenaed Pastors’ Sermons

by Zack Ford Posted on October 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm

There has been a new clash this week in the fight over the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), a law that would protect LGBT individuals and other targeted groups from discrimination. The latest hubbub involves the city subpoenaing five pastors for their sermons, which has prompted conservatives to claim that religious liberty is under attack and that the subpoenas are a form of intimidation.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was on Fox News last night claiming that Houston Mayor Annise Parker (D) is “taking a bulldozer to that wall of separation [of church and state]” and trying to “dictate what pastors preach.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted that the subpoenas constitute a “march against our freedoms.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the subpoenas a “grotesque abuse of power.” And Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott (R) wrote to the Houston City Attorney that the subpoenas should be unilaterally withdrawn because they reflect “hostility to religious beliefs.”

Assessing the veracity of these claims and the epic campaign conservatives are now launching in defense of the “Houston Five” requires an examination of how opponents are challenging HERO, what facts are material to their current lawsuit, and what exactly the city is asking for in its subpoenas of the pastors.

The Law
The Houston City Council approved HERO in May with a vote of 11-6. In addition to its inclusion of LGBT protections, it was actually the city’s first nondiscrimination bill protecting any classification, including race, sex, and religion. Houston was one of the only large cities in the country with no nondiscrimination policy on the books.

HERO did not pass without a fight. Groups like Texas Values, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council attacked the ordinance with anti-transgender claims that it would somehow protect predators and sex offenders. There were also threats to recall Mayor Parker and any city council member who supported it.

The Petition
After the law passed, a coalition formed known as “No Unequal Rights,” spearheaded by local church groups like the Houston Area Pastor Council and Baptist Ministers Association of Houston. The anti-LGBT coalition began collecting signatures to challenge HERO with a referendum.

To qualify for the ballot, No Unequal Rights had to collect 17,269 valid signatures according to the process laid out by the city charter. In July, they submitted over 50,000 signatures for consideration.

When City Secretary Anna Russell first examined the petitions, she counted 17,846 signatures, which would have been enough for the referendum to advance. City Attorney David Feldman then analyzed whether the signature pages had been completed properly according to the city charter, including whether the circulator of the petition was a certified voter in the city and whether the circulator had signed off on each page of signatures collected. Enough of the pages were disqualified to bring the number of signatures below what was required, leading Feldman and Parker to announce that the petition effort had failed.

Opponents of the law responded by immediately filing a lawsuit against the city, demanding the referendum be placed on the ballot.

The Lawsuit
The simple argument made in the suit is that Secretary Russell certified the signatures once, and that was enough. Feldman’s actions further scrutinizing the petitions should be ignored and the referendum placed on the ballot.

As conservatives have been discussing the case, including this week, they conveniently have left out the part of the story where Russell approved Feldman’s analysis of the petitions. The suit itself disregards this, while the city argues that because Russell rubber-stamped Feldman’s conclusions, her initial certification is moot.

Thus, the case largely hinges on the validity of the signatures and the process by which they were collected. A video posted by Equality Texas shortly after the suit was filed shows Pastor David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, training signature collectors about the very city rules that Feldman used to disqualify entire pages of signatures. The subpoenas seek to collect additional information about how pastors like Welch communicated with their congregations about the petition process.

The Subpoenas
News of the subpoenas came from the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who is defending the five pastors they target. ADF announced Monday that they had filed a motion to quash the subpoenas filed by the city’s attorneys.

The subpoenas targeted five pastors in Houston: David Welch, Steve Riggle, Khan Huynh, Magda Hermida, and Hernan Castano. The requests seek documents related to the funding of the petition effort, the training of petition circulators, and the messaging used to convince individuals to sign. What has particularly drawn conservative ire was the request for “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

Parker and Feldman have said that they only learned this week of the subpoenas, which were produced by the city’s outside counsel. They agreed that the language was “overly broad,” clarifying that they believe the suit only demands communications specifically relevant to the petition process — as opposed to sermons otherwise about LGBT issues. The city will move to narrow the scope of the subpoenas accordingly during an upcoming court hearing.

Among ADF’s primary arguments against the subpoenas is the claim that the pastors are not party to the suit against the city. Nevertheless, they were the leaders in the petition effort, which is at the core of the suit. As Feldman told KTRH this week, “We’re certainly entitled to enquire about the communications that took place in the churches regarding the ordinance and the petitions because that’s where they chose to do it,” adding, “It’s relevant to know what representations and instructions were given regarding these petitions.”

ADF also claims that the subpoenas will have a “chilling effect” on the free speech of citizens and that “the referendum process will become toxic” as a result.
The Uproar

Since ADF filed its motion to quash the subpoenas this week, anti-LGBT conservatives have inflated the story beyond the actual scope of the case. In particular, many have conflated the details of the suit with a conversation about whether or not church leaders are even allowed to discuss politics. Almost every organization has followed ADF’s lead in adapting “inquisition” as the new buzzword.

At Fox News, Todd Starnes accused Houston of trying to “silence American pastors.” Pastor Steve Riggle, one of the subpoena recipients, similarly told Starnes, “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” calling Parker a “bully.”

The Family Research Council has launched a fundraising petition in support of the pastors, suggesting, “Mayor Parker has breached the wall of separation between the state and the church” and describing her actions as an “attack on religious freedom and the freedom of speech.”

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, similarly called on the pastors to defy the subpoenas because “the preaching of the church of God does not belong to Caesar, and we will not hand it over to him.” A coalition of Baptist organizations has now sent a letter to Parker asking her to acknowledge that the subpoenas are “improper and unwarranted.”

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson took the fear-mongering even farther, claiming that not only is Houston trying to “publicly shame Christian pastors,” but that they’ll also “try to revoke the tax exempt status of churches.” Jody Hice, a Republican congressional candidate in Georgia, took to his radio show Thursday to suggest that Houston “may be actually trying to bring legal charges against these pastors for sharing with their congregants scriptural passages.” Meanwhile, the American Family Association warned its members that if the pastors refuse to comply, Parker has personally “threatened to charge them with contempt of court and possible fines or jail time.”

Not all conservatives agree that the outrage is justified. The American Vision is an organization that has been designated an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but its Director of Research, Joel McDurmon, believes the subpoenas are reasonable. “Once you file a lawsuit,” he reasoned, “you open up yourself and potentially your friends and acquaintances to discovery.” Though he also agrees the original subpoenas were “unnecessarily broad,” McDurmon is bothered by all of the fear-mongering, which he worries might only be for fundraising purposes. “This is not an attack on all Houston area pastors,” he asserted, calling it “irresponsible” to suggest otherwise.

The fate of the subpoenas will ultimately be determined by the court. In the meantime, conservatives seem intent on using the controversy to spread myths about the petition, the implications of the subpoenas, and more of the same anti-LGBT rhetoric they used to unsuccessfully oppose HERO in the first place.

UPDATE:
On Friday, Mayor Parker announced on Twitter that the city had refiled its subpoenas: “City just refiled subpoenas in #HERO. Clarified our intent. No mention of sermons. All about petition process instructions. Never intended to interfere w/ pastors & their sermons or an intrusion on religion. Our discovery motion now clearly focused on petition.”[/b]

[Dos Equis]

I'm not full of crap.  Since you seem to be saying that you will read it, here's the article.  

(It came across my FB feed a few days ago and took me a while to find it -- I had to wade through way too much crap from the females in my family to find it again, lol.)

I'm not trying to change your mind about whether Pastors' sermons are protected or not, I'm just trying to give you a better account of this story than what you've posted.  To be honest, I think the national coverage of this story has been crappy on the right and the left;  Before I saw the article that I've posted below I think I came across 3 or 4 articles about it (not including your confusing posts) and couldn't figure out what the hell was going on.

The Real Reason Houston Subpoenaed Pastors’ Sermons

by Zack Ford Posted on October 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm

There has been a new clash this week in the fight over the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), a law that would protect LGBT individuals and other targeted groups from discrimination. The latest hubbub involves the city subpoenaing five pastors for their sermons, which has prompted conservatives to claim that religious liberty is under attack and that the subpoenas are a form of intimidation.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was on Fox News last night claiming that Houston Mayor Annise Parker (D) is “taking a bulldozer to that wall of separation [of church and state]” and trying to “dictate what pastors preach.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted that the subpoenas constitute a “march against our freedoms.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the subpoenas a “grotesque abuse of power.” And Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott (R) wrote to the Houston City Attorney that the subpoenas should be unilaterally withdrawn because they reflect “hostility to religious beliefs.”

Assessing the veracity of these claims and the epic campaign conservatives are now launching in defense of the “Houston Five” requires an examination of how opponents are challenging HERO, what facts are material to their current lawsuit, and what exactly the city is asking for in its subpoenas of the pastors.

The Law
The Houston City Council approved HERO in May with a vote of 11-6. In addition to its inclusion of LGBT protections, it was actually the city’s first nondiscrimination bill protecting any classification, including race, sex, and religion. Houston was one of the only large cities in the country with no nondiscrimination policy on the books.

HERO did not pass without a fight. Groups like Texas Values, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council attacked the ordinance with anti-transgender claims that it would somehow protect predators and sex offenders. There were also threats to recall Mayor Parker and any city council member who supported it.

The Petition
After the law passed, a coalition formed known as “No Unequal Rights,” spearheaded by local church groups like the Houston Area Pastor Council and Baptist Ministers Association of Houston. The anti-LGBT coalition began collecting signatures to challenge HERO with a referendum.

To qualify for the ballot, No Unequal Rights had to collect 17,269 valid signatures according to the process laid out by the city charter. In July, they submitted over 50,000 signatures for consideration.

When City Secretary Anna Russell first examined the petitions, she counted 17,846 signatures, which would have been enough for the referendum to advance. City Attorney David Feldman then analyzed whether the signature pages had been completed properly according to the city charter, including whether the circulator of the petition was a certified voter in the city and whether the circulator had signed off on each page of signatures collected. Enough of the pages were disqualified to bring the number of signatures below what was required, leading Feldman and Parker to announce that the petition effort had failed.

Opponents of the law responded by immediately filing a lawsuit against the city, demanding the referendum be placed on the ballot.

The Lawsuit
The simple argument made in the suit is that Secretary Russell certified the signatures once, and that was enough. Feldman’s actions further scrutinizing the petitions should be ignored and the referendum placed on the ballot.

As conservatives have been discussing the case, including this week, they conveniently have left out the part of the story where Russell approved Feldman’s analysis of the petitions. The suit itself disregards this, while the city argues that because Russell rubber-stamped Feldman’s conclusions, her initial certification is moot.

Thus, the case largely hinges on the validity of the signatures and the process by which they were collected. A video posted by Equality Texas shortly after the suit was filed shows Pastor David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, training signature collectors about the very city rules that Feldman used to disqualify entire pages of signatures. The subpoenas seek to collect additional information about how pastors like Welch communicated with their congregations about the petition process.

The Subpoenas
News of the subpoenas came from the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who is defending the five pastors they target. ADF announced Monday that they had filed a motion to quash the subpoenas filed by the city’s attorneys.

The subpoenas targeted five pastors in Houston: David Welch, Steve Riggle, Khan Huynh, Magda Hermida, and Hernan Castano. The requests seek documents related to the funding of the petition effort, the training of petition circulators, and the messaging used to convince individuals to sign. What has particularly drawn conservative ire was the request for “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

Parker and Feldman have said that they only learned this week of the subpoenas, which were produced by the city’s outside counsel. They agreed that the language was “overly broad,” clarifying that they believe the suit only demands communications specifically relevant to the petition process — as opposed to sermons otherwise about LGBT issues. The city will move to narrow the scope of the subpoenas accordingly during an upcoming court hearing.

Among ADF’s primary arguments against the subpoenas is the claim that the pastors are not party to the suit against the city. Nevertheless, they were the leaders in the petition effort, which is at the core of the suit. As Feldman told KTRH this week, “We’re certainly entitled to enquire about the communications that took place in the churches regarding the ordinance and the petitions because that’s where they chose to do it,” adding, “It’s relevant to know what representations and instructions were given regarding these petitions.”

ADF also claims that the subpoenas will have a “chilling effect” on the free speech of citizens and that “the referendum process will become toxic” as a result.
The Uproar

Since ADF filed its motion to quash the subpoenas this week, anti-LGBT conservatives have inflated the story beyond the actual scope of the case. In particular, many have conflated the details of the suit with a conversation about whether or not church leaders are even allowed to discuss politics. Almost every organization has followed ADF’s lead in adapting “inquisition” as the new buzzword.

At Fox News, Todd Starnes accused Houston of trying to “silence American pastors.” Pastor Steve Riggle, one of the subpoena recipients, similarly told Starnes, “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” calling Parker a “bully.”

The Family Research Council has launched a fundraising petition in support of the pastors, suggesting, “Mayor Parker has breached the wall of separation between the state and the church” and describing her actions as an “attack on religious freedom and the freedom of speech.”

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, similarly called on the pastors to defy the subpoenas because “the preaching of the church of God does not belong to Caesar, and we will not hand it over to him.” A coalition of Baptist organizations has now sent a letter to Parker asking her to acknowledge that the subpoenas are “improper and unwarranted.”

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson took the fear-mongering even farther, claiming that not only is Houston trying to “publicly shame Christian pastors,” but that they’ll also “try to revoke the tax exempt status of churches.” Jody Hice, a Republican congressional candidate in Georgia, took to his radio show Thursday to suggest that Houston “may be actually trying to bring legal charges against these pastors for sharing with their congregants scriptural passages.” Meanwhile, the American Family Association warned its members that if the pastors refuse to comply, Parker has personally “threatened to charge them with contempt of court and possible fines or jail time.”

Not all conservatives agree that the outrage is justified. The American Vision is an organization that has been designated an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but its Director of Research, Joel McDurmon, believes the subpoenas are reasonable. “Once you file a lawsuit,” he reasoned, “you open up yourself and potentially your friends and acquaintances to discovery.” Though he also agrees the original subpoenas were “unnecessarily broad,” McDurmon is bothered by all of the fear-mongering, which he worries might only be for fundraising purposes. “This is not an attack on all Houston area pastors,” he asserted, calling it “irresponsible” to suggest otherwise.

The fate of the subpoenas will ultimately be determined by the court. In the meantime, conservatives seem intent on using the controversy to spread myths about the petition, the implications of the subpoenas, and more of the same anti-LGBT rhetoric they used to unsuccessfully oppose HERO in the first place.

UPDATE:
On Friday, Mayor Parker announced on Twitter that the city had refiled its subpoenas: “City just refiled subpoenas in #HERO. Clarified our intent. No mention of sermons. All about petition process instructions. Never intended to interfere w/ pastors & their sermons or an intrusion on religion. Our discovery motion now clearly focused on petition.”[/b]

Thanks.  Yes, you are full of crap.  I read it.  So don't be accusing me of refusing to read things people ask me to read.  And just to be clear, I'll read anything someone asks me to read, as I have done on here for years, unless they are a proven liar or a nut.  Or it's from some crackpot CT site.  

BTW, are you a 911 Troofer?  I need to know who I'm dealing with here.    

Here is part of the story written by the gay activist in the story you provided:  

"Thus, the case largely hinges on the validity of the signatures and the process by which they were collected. A video posted by Equality Texas shortly after the suit was filed shows Pastor David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, training signature collectors about the very city rules that Feldman used to disqualify entire pages of signatures. The subpoenas seek to collect additional information about how pastors like Welch communicated with their congregations about the petition process."

You honestly think this changes anything??  They don't need to see sermons where homosexuality is referenced to defend the invalidated signatures on the petition.  This story actually makes it worse.  lol  This is unquestionably an attempt to chill religious speech.  I want to say there is no way on God's green earth those subpoenas are enforceable, but sometimes judges make bad decisions.  Still, this is absolutely unconstitutional.  

[RRKore]

Thanks.  Yes, you are full of crap.  I read it.  So don't be accusing me of refusing to read things people ask me to read.  And just to be clear, I'll ready anything someone asks me to read, as I have done on here for years, unless they are a proven liar or a nut.  Or it's from some crackpot CT site. 

BTW, are you a 911 Troofer?  I need to know who I'm dealing with here.   

Here is part of the story written by the gay activist in the story you provided: 

"Thus, the case largely hinges on the validity of the signatures and the process by which they were collected. A video posted by Equality Texas shortly after the suit was filed shows Pastor David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, training signature collectors about the very city rules that Feldman used to disqualify entire pages of signatures. The subpoenas seek to collect additional information about how pastors like Welch communicated with their congregations about the petition process."

You honestly think this changes anything??  They don't need to see sermons where homosexuality is referenced to defend the invalidated signatures on the petition.  This story actually makes it worse.  lol  This is unquestionably an attempt to chill religious speech.  I want to say there is no way on God's green earth those subpoenas are enforceable, but sometimes judges make bad decisions.  Still, this is absolutely unconstitutional. 

Why am I full of crap?  I said that I've seen you say "No, I didn't read your article" and you're admitting that that has happened while adding that you had a good reason.

No, I'm not a 911 troofer, lol.  Why would anyone think that?

I'm with you about the original subpoenas being too broad.  Fortunately though, the subpoenas were amended.  
I think it's fine to subpoena instructions given to the signature collectors, though.

That you think it's to chill religious speech seems like an overreach to me.  Sounds partly like an attempt to elicit non-compliance with the subpoenas in an effort to raise the ire of the court in hopes that the lawsuit will not be successful (and the petitions will not be accepted).  It also seems partly like a likely attempt to make the Houston pastors who've been railing again homosexual rights look bad.  

BTW, I'm not sure why sermons would be some sort of protected speech -- Aren't sermons given openly?  I mean, private communication in the confessional is one thing, but a sermon the pastor probably gave at least twice in open church?  Sounds like some of these pastors aren't too proud of their sermons and are worried about potential criticism...

[Dos Equis]

Why am I full of crap?  I said that I've seen you say "No, I didn't read your article" and you're admitting that that has happened while adding that you had a good reason.

No, I'm not a 911 troofer, lol.  Why would anyone think that?

I'm with you about the original subpoenas being too broad.  Fortunately though, the subpoenas were amended.  
I think it's fine to subpoena instructions given to the signature collectors, though.

That you think it's to chill religious speech seems like an overreach to me.  Sounds partly like an attempt to elicit non-compliance with the subpoenas in an effort to raise the ire of the court in hopes that the lawsuit will not be successful (and the petitions will not be accepted).  It also seems partly like a likely attempt to make the Houston pastors who've been railing again homosexual rights look bad.  

BTW, I'm not sure why sermons would be some sort of protected speech -- Aren't sermons given openly?  I mean, private communication in the confessional is one thing, but a sermon the pastor probably gave at least twice in open church?  Sounds like some of these pastors aren't too proud of their sermons and are worried about potential criticism...

This is what I was talking about:

lol.  You've pulled that, "I didn't read the article because blah, blah, blah" too many times. 

Absolutely not true, for the reasons I've already said.

I am glad you are not a 911 Troofer.  I don't have to put you in that tinfoil hat wearing crowd. Just needed to know, because by and large those folks are not very bright. 

The subpoenas were amended to ask for "speeches" instead of "sermons."  lol  That is a classic distinction without a difference.  What the heck do you think a sermon is?  It's a speech. 

It sounds like you need to read up on the First Amendment, but the government doesn't get to tell preachers what they can and cannot say from the pulpit on religious issues.  Even without knowing much about the First Amendment, this should bother you (and every American) who cares about the Constitution. 

This is part of a larger effort to indoctrinate people IMO.  Those folks want to deem any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, homophobia, hate speech, etc., even when that opposition is religious-based.  There is no way the government should insert itself inside of churches to regulate what pastors say about religious issues.  McWay and Colossus predicted this would happen years ago. 

[RRKore]

This is what I was talking about:


Absolutely not true, for the reasons I've already said.

I am glad you are not a 911 Troofer.  I don't have to put you in that tinfoil hat wearing crowd. Just needed to know, because by and large those folks are not very bright. 

The subpoenas were amended to ask for "speeches" instead of "sermons."  lol  That is a classic distinction without a difference.  What the heck do you think a sermon is?  It's a speech. 

It sounds like you need to read up on the First Amendment, but the government doesn't get to tell preachers what they can and cannot say from the pulpit on religious issues.  Even without knowing much about the First Amendment, this should bother you (and every American) who cares about the Constitution. 

This is part of a larger effort to indoctrinate people IMO.  Those folks want to deem any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as hate, homophobia, hate speech, etc., even when that opposition is religious-based.  There is no way the government should insert itself inside of churches to regulate what pastors say about religious issues.  McWay and Colossus predicted this would happen years ago. 

Like I said, for whatever reason you have on this board said that you haven't read an article that was posted.  You did it recently in regard to one of 240's post.  So it's not crap.  No idea why you're trying so hard to not own that shit.  You've done it but it's not the biggest deal.  At least you read my article this time so good for you.

2 questions more important (to me, anyway) about your latest reply, though:
1st, and please correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm a little too lazy to look this up) but I thought the subpoena was amended to just be communications regarding the HERO law specifically and not homosexuality in general, right?

2nd, how is a subpoena for speeches/sermons already made telling preachers what they can or can't say?  Isn't it just asking what they said?  

Still not sure why these Christian sermons are some big secret.  Seems kind of cult-like, really.  

I've always thought that Christians were open about their beliefs but making a big deal about revealing the content of sermons given in open church brings Scientology to mind, lol.

[Dos Equis]

Like I said, for whatever reason you have on this board said that you haven't read an article that was posted.  You did it recently in regard to one of 240's post.  So it's not crap.  No idea why you're trying so hard to not own that shit.  You've done it but it's not the biggest deal.  At least you read my article this time so good for you.

2 questions more important (to me, anyway) about your latest reply, though:
1st, and please correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm a little too lazy to look this up) but I thought the subpoena was amended to just be communications regarding the HERO law specifically and not homosexuality in general, right?

2nd, how is a subpoena for speeches/sermons already made telling preachers what they can or can't say?  Isn't it just asking what they said?  

Still not sure why these Christian sermons are some big secret.  Seems kind of cult-like, really.  

I've always thought that Christians were open about their beliefs but making a big deal about revealing the content of sermons given in open church brings Scientology to mind, lol.

I don't need to own what I already said.     Like I said:

And just to be clear, I'll read anything someone asks me to read, as I have done on here for years, unless they are a proven liar or a nut.  Or it's from some crackpot CT site.  

So, for example, since you mentioned 240, he is a proven liar.  I have pointed it out countless times on the board.  And one time too many he has posted links that not only don't support what he claims, but contradicts what he claims.  That's the limitation.  You have done it too (made false statements on the board), but you're not his league.  I don't have a problem reading links you ask me to read, so long as I don't think you're trolling, or you prove yourself to be a chronic liar. 

As I indicated, the subpoenas were amended to "limit" their request to "speeches" instead of "sermons." If you cannot see that is exactly the same, I cannot help you. 

Trying to subpoena sermons that mention homosexuality, etc. is clearly an attempt to try and censor pastors; to prevent them from speaking about that issue.  It's patently obvious.  This is unprecedented.  Or least I've never heard anything like it. 

Dude you sound like a shill for those folks.  Those pastors don't need a reason to refuse to turnover sermons.  It's Constitutionally protected speech.  Has nothing to do with privacy.  But this does remind me of a conversation I had with someone who claimed that if someone has nothing to hide, they should turnover all of their financial information to a government regulator.  That is a really simplistic thought process.  The whole nature of rights like this is you don't have to explain why your stuff is private (or otherwise protected).  It's sort of a circular argument, but it's easily understandable to most people without an agenda.   

[RRKore]

I don't need to own what I already said.     Like I said:


So, for example, since you mentioned 240, he is a proven liar.  I have pointed it out countless times on the board.  And one time too many he has posted links that not only don't support what he claims, but contradicts what he claims.  That's the limitation.  You have done it too (made false statements on the board), but you're not his league.  I don't have a problem reading links you ask me to read, so long as I don't think you're trolling, or you prove yourself to be a chronic liar. 

As I indicated, the subpoenas were amended to "limit" their request to "speeches" instead of "sermons." If you cannot see that is exactly the same, I cannot help you. 

Trying to subpoena sermons that mention homosexuality, etc. is clearly an attempt to try and censor pastors; to prevent them from speaking about that issue.  It's patently obvious.  This is unprecedented.  Or least I've never heard anything like it. 

Dude you sound like a shill for those folks.  Those pastors don't need a reason to refuse to turnover sermons.  It's Constitutionally protected speech.  Has nothing to do with privacy.  But this does remind me of a conversation I had with someone who claimed that if someone has nothing to hide, they should turnover all of their financial information to a government regulator.  That is a really simplistic thought process.  The whole nature of rights like this is you don't have to explain why your stuff is private (or otherwise protected).  It's sort of a circular argument, but it's easily understandable to most people without an agenda.   

Looks like we have different ideas of how the amended subpoenas differ from the originals;  You seem to be saying that they only changed "sermons" to "speeches" and I'm thinking that they changed the desired info from "sermons/speeches about homosexuality" to "sermons/speeches specifically concerning the HERO law".  This should be easy to clear up so I'll find out and get back to you fairly quickly, I think.

BTW, if it's true that not forking over a sermon is a constitutionally protected right, then I'm fine with refusing to do it on that basis alone.  Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the ins and outs of the first amendment to be able to figure out how a sermon given in open church is protected speech insofar as it can never be the subject of a court subpoena, though.  

Even if it isn't necessary to give up, I think I'd do it anyway if I thought it would help me win a lawsuit I've initiated, though.  And, by the same token, if I thought it might help me to lose the lawsuit, I think I'd insist that my rights were being violated and not turn them over, lol.  

BTW, how is it "clearly" an attempt to censor pastors?  Couldn't it easily be argued that the lawsuit itself is meant as way for the pastors to get wider recognition for their anti-homo sentiments for the purpose of attracting new (bigoted) church members?  (Or as a fund-raising ploy -- which has been suggested in some circles.)  Nothing "clear" about it, imo.

Especially since it's been mentioned that Houston is one of the few big cities without LGBT anti-discrimination laws so any sort of referendum against such a law isn't likely to "stick" for very long anyway, right?

[Dos Equis]

Looks like we have different ideas of how the amended subpoenas differ from the originals;  You seem to be saying that they only changed "sermons" to "speeches" and I'm thinking that they changed the desired info from "sermons/speeches about homosexuality" to "sermons/speeches specifically concerning the HERO law".  This should be easy to clear up so I'll find out and get back to you fairly quickly, I think.

BTW, if it's true that not forking over a sermon is a constitutionally protected right, then I'm fine with refusing to do it on that basis alone.  Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the ins and outs of the first amendment to be able to figure out how a sermon given in open church is protected speech insofar as it can never be the subject of a court subpoena, though.  

Even if it isn't necessary to give up, I think I'd do it anyway if I thought it would help me win a lawsuit I've initiated, though.  And, by the same token, if I thought it might help me to lose the lawsuit, I think I'd insist that my rights were being violated and not turn them over, lol.  

BTW, how is it "clearly" an attempt to censor pastors?  Couldn't it easily be argued that the lawsuit itself is meant as way for the pastors to get wider recognition for their anti-homo sentiments for the purpose of attracting new (bigoted) church members?  (Or as a fund-raising ploy -- which has been suggested in some circles.)  Nothing "clear" about it, imo.

Especially since it's been mentioned that Houston is one of the few big cities without LGBT anti-discrimination laws so any sort of referendum against such a law isn't likely to "stick" for very long anyway, right?

This is exactly what me and others have been saying for years.  You are calling Biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle "bigotry."  Others call it hate.  And sermons about it will one day be deemed hate speech.  That is precisely where this is headed. 

[RRKore]

This is exactly what me and others have been saying for years.  You are calling Biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle "bigotry."  Others call it hate.  And sermons about it will one day be deemed hate speech.  That is precisely where this is headed. 

Perceptive of you to realize that biblically-based opposition to homosexuality is/was destined to be, like more that a few other out-dated notions in the Bible, rejected by mainstream society.  

BTW, according to Fox News and Tony Perkins, providing the sermons is not and never was a big deal since they are live-streamed anyway.  What the attorneys filing suit to have the signatures allowed objected to was that the subpoenas are also asking for the pastors' "...private emails, texts, and other communications related to the mayor’s office and the city’s Bathroom Bill."  (Bathroom Bill = HERO law.)  This finally makes sense to me -- Much easier to make the case for private communications between a pastor and certain individual members of his church being privileged than sermons that have been given openly before dozens of people.

Re: the revised subpoena (available here: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillCityQuashPrelimResponse.pdf), only the 12th request (of 17) was revised:
Request No. 12 originally read:
All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuals, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

Defendants hereby revise Request No. 12 as follows:
All speeches or presentations related to HERO or the Petition prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

Defendants (the state) claims that the requested info IS discoverable while the plaintiffs (attorneys opposing the HERO law) are saying that because clergymen make up one of the parties, the info is priveleged.

So, like I said before, it's a complicated case.  It hinges on what is and what is not discoverable under our court system.

[Dos Equis]

Perceptive of you to realize that biblically-based opposition to homosexuality is/was destined to be, like more that a few other out-dated notions in the Bible, rejected by mainstream society.  

BTW, according to Fox News and Tony Perkins, providing the sermons is not and never was a big deal since they are live-streamed anyway.  What the attorneys filing suit to have the signatures allowed objected to was that the subpoenas are also asking for the pastors' "...private emails, texts, and other communications related to the mayor’s office and the city’s Bathroom Bill."  (Bathroom Bill = HERO law.)  This finally makes sense to me -- Much easier to make the case for private communications between a pastor and certain individual members of his church being privileged than sermons that have been given openly before dozens of people.

Re: the revised subpoena (available here: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillCityQuashPrelimResponse.pdf), only the 12th request (of 17) was revised:
Request No. 12 originally read:
All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuals, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

Defendants hereby revise Request No. 12 as follows:
All speeches or presentations related to HERO or the Petition prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

Defendants (the state) claims that the requested info IS discoverable while the plaintiffs (attorneys opposing the HERO law) are saying that because clergymen make up one of the parties, the info is priveleged.

So, like I said before, it's a complicated case.  It hinges on what is and what is not discoverable under our court system.

What is perceptive of me is to realize that zealots are trying to censor religious speech, and that according to them (and apparently you) sexual preference overrides the First Amendment free exercise of religion.  That's why they don't want even pastors or churches to be exempt from the new homosexual marriage law in Hawaii (and likely other places).  They have already made much of the country hypersensitive about this whole subject.  You cannot even joke about it without getting fired, suspended, ostracized, etc.  It is amazing to me how such a small lobby has enveloped so much of the country.  Without question the most powerful lobby I've seen in the political process when you consider their population size and what they have accomplished in such a short period of time.  

The revised language really changes nothing.  Any sermon that mentions HERO is going to address homosexuality.  Preachers talk about political issues all the time during sermons.  That absolutely shouldn't make those sermons subject to the government forcing preachers to turnover copies as part of some witch hunt.  This is really outrageous.

This is not complicated at all.  

[Jack T. Cross]

What is perceptive of me is to realize that zealots are trying to censor religious speech, and that according to them (and apparently you) sexual preference overrides the First Amendment free exercise of religion.  That's why they don't want even pastors or churches to be exempt from the new homosexual marriage law in Hawaii (and likely other places).  They have already made much of the country hypersensitive about this whole subject.  You cannot even joke about it without getting fired, suspended, ostracized, etc.  It is amazing to me how such a small lobby has enveloped so much of the country.  Without question the most powerful lobby I've seen in the political process when you consider their population size and what they have accomplished in such a short period of time.

The revised language really changes nothing.  Any sermon that mentions HERO is going to address homosexuality.  Preachers talk about political issues all the time during sermons.  That absolutely shouldn't make those sermons subject to the government forcing preachers to turnover copies as part of some witch hunt.  This is really outrageous.

This is not complicated at all.  

How would you attempt to explain it, if you were to try?

[Dos Equis]

How would you attempt to explain it, if you were to try?

The percentage of homosexuals in this country is very small.  But over the past twenty years, they have made themselves a "protected class" by getting numerous states to provide employment protection, housing discrimination protection, hate crimes protection, forced privately owned dating sites to include them, gotten schools to change the definition of human anatomy by calling the anus a genital, removed the ban on homosexuals in the military, forced businesses owned by religious people to act in violation of their faith and conscience, forced unisex bathrooms in schools, completely upset the apple cart regarding traditional marriage, and taken political correctness to a level not associated with any other protected class.  I created a thread a while back about an NBA player who jokingly said "no homo" during an interview and was fined.  Even using the word "gay" can get you fired.  The hypersensitivity is incredible.

They even got the president to change his "evolving" view on homosexual marriage by threatening him with the withholding of campaign money.      

If I had the time or desire, I could probably come up with about ten other examples, but unless you're trolling you should get the picture.  

What other group so small has accomplished so much in such a short period of time?

[Jack T. Cross]

The percentage of homosexuals in this country is very small.  But over the past twenty years, they have made themselves a "protected class" by getting numerous states to provide employment protection, housing discrimination protection, hate crimes protection, forced privately owned dating sites to include them, gotten schools to change the definition of human anatomy by calling the anus a genital, removed the ban on homosexuals in the military, forced businesses owned by religious people to act in violation of their faith and conscience, forced unisex bathrooms in schools, completely upset the apple cart regarding traditional marriage, and taken political correctness to a level not associated with any other protected class.  I created a thread a while back about an NBA played who jokingly said "no homo" during an interview and was fined.  Even using the word "gay" can get you fired.  The hypersensitivity is incredible.

They even got the president to change his "evolving" view on homosexual marriage by threatening him with the withholding of campaign money.      

If I had the time or desire, I could probably come up with about ten other examples, but unless you're trolling you should get the picture.  

What other group so small has accomplished so much in such a short period of time?

Tough to argue against most of what you've just said. But how would you say it's happened, if you were to try to explain it? How could such a force rise to do as it did?

[Dos Equis]

Tough to argue against most of what you've just said. But how would you say it's happened, if you were to try to explain it?

How could such a force rise to do as it did?

I don't know.  It just happened.  Part of it is money.  Part of it is a change of societal views.  Partly politics.  Partly political pandering.  Some of it needed to happen (like not criminalizing sodomy).  But overall, I don't know that there is any one thing or if I can explain precisely why it happened.  It's pretty remarkable. 

What other group so small has accomplished so much in such a short period of time?

[Jack T. Cross]

I don't know.  It just happened.  Part of it is money.  Part of it is a change of societal views.  Partly politics.  Partly political pandering.  Some of it needed to happen (like not criminalizing sodomy).  But overall, I don't know that there is any one thing or if I can explain precisely why it happened.  It's pretty remarkable. 

What other group so small has accomplished so much in such a short period of time?

Yeah, it is something, alright. Very strange.

[Jack T. Cross]

I know that having a nation of weakened, beta males would be quite a convenient product, if someone is determined to seize control away from the people. I'll say that.

[Straw Man]

I don't know.  It just happened.  Part of it is money.  Part of it is a change of societal views.  Partly politics.  Partly political pandering.  Some of it needed to happen (like not criminalizing sodomy).  But overall, I don't know that there is any one thing or if I can explain precisely why it happened.  It's pretty remarkable. 

What other group so small has accomplished so much in such a short period of time?

Since when does the size of the group determine whether they are entitled to equal rights or not

You might also keep in mind that it's not just gay people but their families and others who support equal rights under the law

[Jack T. Cross]

I know that having a nation of weakened, beta males would be quite a convenient product, if someone is determined to seize control away from the people. I'll say that.

...btw: I mean to say this with regard to the entire media-created movement against individual aggression, particularly male aggression, as much as anything else. These things have been linked quite closely, from what I see.

[Dos Equis]

I'm actually surprised she withdrew them, but not surprised at all that she refused to acknowledge that she was wrong.

Houston drops controversial pastor subpoenas
Published October 29, 2014
FoxNews.com

Houston announced Wednesday that it will withdraw the subpoenas of sermons from five pastors who publicly opposed an ordinance banning discrimination against gay and transgender residents, The Houston Chronicle reported.

"I didn't do this to satisfy them," Mayor Annise Parker said, referring to critics of the subpoenas. "I did it because it was not serving Houston."   

In May, the City Council passed the equal rights ordinance, which consolidates city bans on discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion and other categories and increases protections for gay and transgender residents.

The controversy has touched a nerve among religious conservatives around the country, already anxious about the rapid spread of gay rights and what it might mean for faith groups that object. Religious groups, including some that support civil rights protections for gays, have protested the subpoenas as a violation of religious freedom.

Parker, who is gay, and other supporters said the measure is about offering protections at the local level against all forms of discrimination in housing, employment and services provided by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

"It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged," Parker said. "We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts."

Religious institutions are exempt, but city attorneys recently subpoenaed the pastors, seeking all speeches, presentations or sermons related to the repeal petition.

Christian activists had sued after city officials ruled they didn't collect enough signatures to get the question on the ballot. The city secretary initially counted enough signatures, but then city attorney David Feldman ruled that more than half of the pages of the petition were invalid.

The Associated press contributed to this report

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/29/houston-drops-controversial-pastor-subpoenas/