Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 10, 2013, 06:51:07 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/louie-giglio-anti-gay-benediction-inauguration_n_2441698.html
LOL at the meltdowns!!!!
You voted for O-Twink - now eat shit.
-
sorry find somthing else
BREAKING: Anti-gay pastor removed from inaugural program http://thkpr.gs/WSBcW2
Louis Giglio, the anti-LGBT pastor who had been announced to perform the benediction at President Obama’s second inauguration, has been removed from the program, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl reported Thursday.
The move came after ThinkProgress reported Wednesday that in the 1990s, Giglio had given a lengthy sermon in which he advocated for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, referenced a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impelled Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society
read more: http://twitter.com/jonkarl/statuses/289400247824830465
-
He still used Rick warren. Not a wise choice, Obama. Seemed like a political choice at the time.
-
Oh damn, that little whinefest was snipped in the bud right away.
Another thread to file under FAIL.
-
Where is the controversy? He needs to find a Christian who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin?? The kind of censorship that McWay has mentioned for years is coming.
-
Where is the controversy? He needs to find a Christian who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin?? The kind of censorship that McWay has mentioned for years is coming.
hardly censorship as any christian can say whatever he wants, write whatever he wants, etc..
many christians don't believe homosexuality is a sin and it certainly doesn't appear that Obama believes that so why would he want someone speaking who does believe that ?
-
Where is the controversy? He needs to find a Christian who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin?? The kind of censorship that McWay has mentioned for years is coming.
censorship? The guy quit didn't he? I haven't seen an article saying he was forced out unless you want to distort "censorship" to mean "social pressure" ::)
-
hardly censorship as any christian can say whatever he wants, write whatever he wants, etc..
many christians don't believe homosexuality is a sin and it certainly doesn't appear that Obama believes that so why would he want someone speaking who does believe that ?
-
censorship? The guy quit didn't he? I haven't seen an article saying he was forced out unless you want to distort "censorship" to mean "social pressure" ::)
I didn't call it censorship. I said it's coming. This is akin to censorship, because he was probably forced to "quit" over his noncontroversial, garden variety, Biblically based view of homosexuality. They're trying to dictate what pastors say about homosexuality from the pulpit. Pretty alarming.
So now they have to scour the religious ranks for a Christian pastor who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin.
-
I didn't call it censorship. I said it's coming. This is akin to censorship, because he was probably forced to "quit" over his noncontroversial, garden variety, Biblically based view of homosexuality. They're trying to dictate what pastors say about homosexuality from the pulpit. Pretty alarming.
So now they have to scour the religious ranks for a Christian pastor who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin.
it's not censorship or akin to it
he has no "right" to speak at this event and he can say or write anything he wants
No one is stopping him from saying anything he wants from his pulpit and the only alarming thing is that he made it on the list in the first place. You'd think they would have a better system in place for weeding out bigots and weirdos by now
-
what's with your queer obsession with Obama?
-
what's with your queer obsession with Obama?
I just wish he would come out of the closet and be open about it by now on this, as well as everything else from his drug abuse, communist ties, etc.
-
I didn't call it censorship. I said it's coming. This is akin to censorship, because he was probably forced to "quit" over his noncontroversial, garden variety, Biblically based view of homosexuality. They're trying to dictate what pastors say about homosexuality from the pulpit. Pretty alarming.
So now they have to scour the religious ranks for a Christian pastor who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin.
Shouldn't be too hard as the outlook is changing year after year. Just as the Bible projected views of interracial marriage being a sin, this too will eventually pass.
-
Shouldn't be too hard as the outlook is changing year after year. Just as the Bible projected views of interracial marriage being a sin, this too will eventually pass.
you're forgetting that Bum probably doesn't think those people are real christians
-
Shouldn't be too hard as the outlook is changing year after year. Just as the Bible projected views of interracial marriage being a sin, this too will eventually pass.
Not really. At least as it relates to mainstream Christianity, and specifically Christian pastors. There have been some denominations that have endorsed homosexual marriage, but nothing has really changed when it comes to Christian pastors talking about the nature of homosexuality. This is one area that is pretty clear when it comes to Christianity.
I would agree that society's outlook has changed, dramatically, over the past 20 years or so.
The Bible says interracial marriage is a sin? Where?
-
Not really. At least as it relates to mainstream Christianity, and specifically Christian pastors. There have been some denominations that have endorsed homosexual marriage, but nothing has really changed when it comes to Christian pastors talking about the nature of homosexuality. This is one area that is pretty clear when it comes to Christianity.
I would agree that society's outlook has changed, dramatically, over the past 20 years or so.
The Bible says interracial marriage is a sin? Where?
translation - they are not real christians
-
I didn't call it censorship. I said it's coming. This is akin to censorship, because he was probably forced to "quit" over his noncontroversial, garden variety, Biblically based view of homosexuality. They're trying to dictate what pastors say about homosexuality from the pulpit. Pretty alarming.
So now they have to scour the religious ranks for a Christian pastor who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin.
from what I read, the pastor has since changed his views and he hasn't preached on homosexuality in 15-20 years.
I wouldn't sound the battle trumpets just yet lol.
-
I don't know why a Pastor should pray at the inauguration.
This is not a Christian country and there isn't a single Christian in that cabinet.
-
from what I read, the pastor has since changed his views and he hasn't preached on homosexuality in 15-20 years.
I wouldn't sound the battle trumpets just yet lol.
He no longer believes what the Bible says about homosexuality?
I'd still have the band warming up. :)
-
The move came after ThinkProgress reported Wednesday that in the 1990s, Giglio had given a lengthy sermon in which he advocated for dangerous “ex-gay” therapy for gay and lesbian people, referenced a biblical passage often interpreted to require gay people be executed, and impelled Christians to “firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” and prevent the “homosexual lifestyle” from becoming accepted in society
...and secured his gig at the next Republican inauguration.
;D
-
...and secured his gig at the next Republican inauguration.
;D
If its Hillary v "Jeb" or "Rubio" - there won't be another repub in 2016. We will be saddled w 4 more years of garbage.
-
:D
-
If its Hillary v "Jeb" or "Rubio" - there won't be another repub in 2016. We will be saddled w 4 more years of garbage.
Agree.
But really, the repubs need to shut the fk up about religion, sexuality, and other social matters that have little if any impact on the way the country is run. Times are different now. People are different. I would venture to say that our society is currently the most socially liberal it's ever been; including members of all parties...except Rick Santorum, who even my most conservative friends find revolting.
-
:D
;D ;D ;D
-
Agree.
But really, the repubs need to shut the fk up about religion, sexuality, and other social matters that have little if any impact on the way the country is run. Times are different now. People are different. I would venture to say that our society is currently the most socially liberal it's ever been; including members of all parties...except Rick Santorum, who even my most conservative friends find revolting.
Yeah - the "social cons" need to give it a rest for a while in demanding legal approaches to these issues. Younger voters are repulsed by this stuff, but the fiscal issues should be a slam dunk for the repubs now w the mess obama has made
-
Yeah - the "social cons" need to give it a rest for a while in demanding legal approaches to these issues. &guy voters are repulsed by this stuff, but the fiscal issues should be a slam dunk for the repubs now w the mess obama has made
Do you think that, in forming their political identity, impressionable young/new voters are influenced more by social issues than fiscal ones?
-
Do you think that, in forming their political identity, impressionable young/new voters are influenced more by social issues than fiscal ones?
Social issues since they have been indoctrinated w leftism in the schools for years by the time they get to voting age.
At least w the fiscal issues you can look to some 18 yo and say - you want a job or do you want be an obamaphone lady your entire life
-
Social issues since they have been indoctrinated w leftism in the schools for years by the time they get to voting age.
At least w the fiscal issues you can look to some 18 yo and say - you want a job or do you want be an obamaphone lady your entire life
There are some young people I talk with who don't think that way. Last November, a 21 year-old college girl texted me, "I can't believe you're not voting for 0bama." I asked her what, specifically, 0 has done or said he will do that she likes. She never answered me.
That's why I'm not kidding when I say that voters should have to pass some kind of test before being permitted to vote; to demonstrate knowledge of what they're about to vote on! How can you vote for someone when you know NOTHING substantial about them?
At least some of the liberal posters here can actually point to concrete things they like about the president. That's fine; it's their opinion. But, considering the number who seemingly know almost nothing about the guy, I can't help but wonder if the reason they like him is simply because Jay-Z and George Clooney are "buddies" with him. :-\
-
That is why we are screwed - we are a nation of idiots w the Chief Idiot at 1600 PA Ave.. Celebutard Culture w Obama as the head pop icon Celeb.
There are some young people I talk with who don't think that way. Last November, a 21 year-old college girl texted me, "I can't believe you're not voting for 0bama." I asked her what, specifically, 0 has done or said he will do that she likes. She never answered me.
That's why I'm not kidding when I say that voters should have to pass some kind of test before being permitted to vote; to demonstrate knowledge of what they're about to vote on! How can you vote for someone when you know NOTHING substantial about them?
At least some of the liberal posters here can actually point to concrete things they like about the president. That's fine; it's their opinion. But, considering the number who seemingly know almost nothing about the guy, I can't help but wonder if the reason they like him is simply because Jay-Z and George Clooney are "buddies" with him. :-\
-
That is why we are screwed - we are a nation of idiots w the Chief Idiot at 1600 PA Ave.. Celebutard Culture w Obama as the head pop icon Celeb.
I knew a woman in her 40's who said, in all sincerity, that she was voting for John Edwards "because he's cute."
Then, she shot a dreamy stare off into the fourth quadrant with a look on her face like she anticipated Edwards coming to her house and screwing her on the bed she shared with her husband because of it.
-
I knew a woman in her 40's who said, in all sincerity, that she was voting for John Edwards "because he's cute."
Then, she shot a dreamy stare off into the fourth quadrant with a look on her face like she anticipated Edwards coming to her house and screwing her on the bed she shared with her husband because of it.
I have no doubt about that at all.
If Ron Paul were vs Obama - Obama probably would have won too due to the legions of morons in this society now voting.
-
:)
-
Social issues since they have been indoctrinated w leftism in the schools for years by the time they get to voting age.
At least w the fiscal issues you can look to some 18 yo and say - you want a job or do you want be an obamaphone lady your entire life
no such thing as an Obama phone no idea what you think "leftism" in schools is
-
:)
it seems more right wing morons think of Obama as the hulk
you're the one who thinks he is a incredible dictator and you are his slave (as you're put it)
-
This is how the electoral college and popular vote saw Obama.
-
This is how the rest of the country see the teabaggers and 47% Republican'ts.
-
no such thing as an Obama phone no idea what you think "leftism" in schools is
Tell that to her and her buddies!!
-
Tell that to her and her buddies!!
newsflash
just because she is as stupid as you still doesn't make it true
-
newsflash
just because she is as stupid as you still doesn't make it true
News Flash!!
They fell for Obama's BS, just like you. Don't pawn your fellow Obama-worshipping minions on me.
She, much like you, probably thinks Obama's going to bilk those EEEEEEVVVVVIIILLL rich people and give the money to folks like her.
Yep, there are no Obamaphones.....and the middle class didn't get their taxes raised......and Obama kept unemployment under 8%. ::)
-
News Flash!!
They fell for Obama's BS, just like you. Don't pawn your fellow Obama-worshipping minions on me.
She, much like you, probably thinks Obama's going to bilk those EEEEEEVVVVVIIILLL rich people and give the money to folks like her.
What BS ?
When did Obama ever mention an "Obama phone" ?
-
What BS ?
When did Obama ever mention an "Obama phone" ?
Apparently, you didn't read the last line: "She, much like you, probably thinks Obama's going to bilk those EEEEVVVVIIIILLL rich people and give the money to people like her". Obama ran his campaign on redistributing the wealth. Obamaphones, if you will, apparently are part of that.
BTW, Obama mentioned a lot of stuff on which he didn't deliver (cutting the deficit in half, not raising taxes on the middle class, keeping healthcare premiums low, etc).
-
Apparently, you didn't read the last line: "She, much like you, probably thinks Obama's going to bilk those EEEEVVVVIIIILLL rich people and give the money to people like her". Obama ran his campaign on redistributing the wealth. Obamaphones, if you will, apparently are part of that.
BTW, Obama mentioned a lot of stuff on which he didn't deliver (cutting the deficit in half, not raising taxes on the middle class, keeping healthcare premiums low, etc).
so you're agreeing there is no such thing as an Obamaphone ?
-
so you're agreeing there is no such thing as an Obamaphone ?
There is an obamaphone. Obama massively expanded the program to include cell phones where it used to be only for landlines for emergencies.
Now its used by obama voters to score coke, pot, booze, chooms, cigs, welfare scrips, etc.
-
There is an obamaphone. Obama massively expanded the program to include cell phones where it used to be only for landlines for emergencies.
Now its used by obama voters to score coke, pot, booze, chooms, cigs, welfare scrips, etc.
no there isn't
no such thing
-
no there isn't
no such thing
The millions who got free phones from O-TWINK obviously disagree.
-
RRREEEEEEMMIIIIIIXXXXX!!!
-
It may not be "officially" called an 0bamaphone, but govt assistance recipients do receive a phone. I know a single mother going to school who has one.
It has limited services, but you can still talk and text.
-
Agree.
But really, the repubs need to shut the fk up about religion, sexuality, and other social matters that have little if any impact on the way the country is run. Times are different now. People are different. I would venture to say that our society is currently the most socially liberal it's ever been; including members of all parties...except Rick Santorum, who even my most conservative friends find revolting.
Well said. I'm fairly liberal on many issues. Though, I have certain ideas that some call conservative, such as on the gun control debate. One of the major issues that turns me off about the republicans is the religion talk.
-
It may not be "officially" called an 0bamaphone, but govt assistance recipients do receive a phone. I know a single mother going to school who has one.
It has limited services, but you can still talk and text.
would be kind of odd if it were considering the programs started long before Obama
-
would be kind of odd if it were considering the programs started long before Obama
For landlines! No for cell phones which ObamaDoc great expanded to include all his ghetto peeps.
-
Yeah - the "social cons" need to give it a rest for a while in demanding legal approaches to these issues. Younger voters are repulsed by this stuff, but the fiscal issues should be a slam dunk for the repubs now w the mess obama has made
But, they're not.
The guy who actually know how businesses and economies are run got beat by "Baracka Claus". And, since that guy won the independents, the major reason he lost would be the base not coming out strong.
The "social cons" are part of that base. It's safe to say no Republican is winning the White House without them. Say what you want about Bush; but, he got the "social cons" to the polls and he WON. He even picked off some in the black and Latino communities, increasing his tallies in both from his 2000 run to his 2004 re-election.
Few, if any, social conservatives aren't also fiscal ones. So, for me, there's no "either/or" scenario.
-
One of the major issues that turns me off about the republicans is the religion talk.
It turns off a lot of folks.
-
For landlines! No for cell phones which ObamaDoc great expanded to include all his ghetto peeps.
yeah because the program didn't exist for cell phones before Obama got in office
is that what you're trying to say?
and aren't you a ghetto dweller too whats with ghetto peeps talk ?
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/louie-giglio-anti-gay-benediction-inauguration_n_2441698.html
LOL at the meltdowns!!!!
You voted for O-Twink - now eat shit.
I thought you disliked gays?
-
I thought you disliked gays?
the dude is the biggest closet case on this board
-
the dude is the biggest closet case on this board
New rules so hard for you bro.
-
New rules so hard for you bro.
why are you the ONLY PERSON crying about new rules all the time and what exactly is the reason for your gay obsession with Obama?
You can't seem to stop talking about it
-
why are you the ONLY PERSON crying about new rules all the time and what exactly is the reason for your gay obsession with Obama?
You can't seem to stop talking about it
I find it humorous how he just can't come out of the closet.
-
I find it humorous how he just can't come out of the closet.
that's because he's not gay
I find it really humorous that you can't come out of the closet and also can't stop talking about how you think Obama is gay
The "sources" for all your gay shit (which I assume you must go LOOK for) are completely worthless but still you seem to have no standard for stuff like that
-
that's because he's not gay
I find it really humorous that you can't come out of the closet and also can't stop talking about how you think Obama is gay
The "sources" for all your gay shit (which I assume you must go LOOK for) are completely worthless but still you seem to have no standard for stuff like that
Pic of Obama and Chandoo is obvious.
-
Pic of Obama and Chandoo is obvious.
apparently to you
what does that tell you?
-
apparently to you
what does that tell you?
Bro I like chicks w big asses and fat tits. Not into dudes.
-
Bro I like chicks w big asses and fat tits. Not into dudes.
sure you do
you are a guy who is obsessed with the idea of Obama being gay and you can tell he is gay by looking at a photo
that doesn't sound at all gay
-
sure you do
you are a guy who is obsessed with the idea of Obama being gay and you can tell he is gay by looking at a photo
that doesn't sound at all gay
Looks like 33 has a gay-dar.
Dont you have to be gay to have that ability?
-
New rules so hard for you bro.
Grow a pair.
-
I didn't call it censorship. I said it's coming. This is akin to censorship, because he was probably forced to "quit" over his noncontroversial, garden variety, Biblically based view of homosexuality. They're trying to dictate what pastors say about homosexuality from the pulpit. Pretty alarming.
So now they have to scour the religious ranks for a Christian pastor who doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin.
This is something that Colossus and McWay have mentioned was coming for years.
City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
By Todd Starnes
Published October 14, 2014
FoxNews.com
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.
“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”
ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”
“Political and social commentary is not a crime,” Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.”
The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.
The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.
However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.
After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.
The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.
“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF attorney Erik Stanley. “This is designed to intimidate pastors.”
Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.
“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.
However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.
Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.
The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law.
“This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”
David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.
“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”
He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.
“We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”
Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers.
“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”
Perkins called the actions by Houston’s mayor “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated.”
“This is a shot across the bow of the church,” he said.
This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.
Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.
Tony Perkins is absolutely right. Now is the time for pastors and people of faith to take a stand. We must rise up and reject this despicable strong-arm attack on religious liberty. We cannot allow ministers to be intimidated by government thugs.
The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”
Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.
Pastor Welch compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution.
“This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family,” Welch told me. “This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”
We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together - because one day – the government might come for your pastor.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons/
-
Houston to pastors: Forget your sermons, now we want your speeches
By Todd Starnes
Published October 17, 2014
FoxNews.com
Five Christian pastors will no longer have to turn their sermons over to attorneys for the city of Houston. Instead, they will be forced to turn over their speeches related to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).
I don’t mean to point out the obvious here – but what do those attorneys think a sermon is? It’s a speech.
According to an amended motion filed Friday in Harris County, Texas court, the city’s attorneys will no longer demand sermons related to homosexuals, gender identity, or Mayor Annise Parker – Houston's first openly lesbian mayor.
The amended subpoenas do require the pastors to turn over “all speeches or presentations related to HERO” – along with 17 different categories of information.
I don’t mean to point out the obvious here – but what do those attorneys think a sermon is? It’s a speech.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is a religious liberty law firm that is representing the pastors. Attorney Erik Stanley tells me the amended subpoenas don’t solve anything.
“The city of Houston still doesn’t get it,” he said. “The subpoenas still ask for information that encompasses speeches made by the pastors and private communications with their church members.”
Stanley said the only resolution is for the city to rescind the subpoenas entirely.
“This tramples their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion,” Stanley said. “Any inquiry into what these pastors did in standing against the ordinance passed by the city of Houston and encouraging members to sign the petition is a violation of the First Amendment.”
The subpoenas were issued in a response to a lawsuit filed related to HERO, also known as the “Bathroom Bill.” Religious groups were opposed to a provision of the law that would allow men who identify as women to use the restrooms of their choice.
The city’s attorney said the pastors were subpoenaed because they were helping to lead opposition to the Bathroom Bill.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Mayor Parker said on Friday, "We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners."
Folks, that's a load of grade A fertilizer.
"We don't want their sermons, we want the instructions on the petition process. That's always what we wanted and, again, they knew that's what we wanted because that's the subject of the lawsuit," she said.
There's just one problem, Madam Mayor, the pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. And if you weren't looking for their sermons, why did you put that in the subpoena.
The amended subpoenas are not likely to quell growing national outrage over what many are calling an all-out assault on religious liberty.
Sen. Ted Cruz forcefully denounced the city’s actions during a Thursday rally in support of the pastors in Houston.
“Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit,” Cruz said to a cheering crowd of pastors and supporters. “When you subpoena one pastor, you subpoena every pastor.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a blistering letter to the city attorney Wednesday night – demanding they immediately rescind the subpoenas.
He called the subpoenas “aggressive and invasive” and said they show “no regard for the very serious First Amendment considerations at stake.”
“Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Abbott wrote.
Also on Wednesday, Mayor Parker issued a defiant statement on Twitter – justifying the city’s attack on the ministers.
“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game,” Parker tweeted.
Stanley said the mayor’s tweet revealed the city’s true intent.
“I think the mayor’s comment unmasks what the city is really after,” he said. “The city views these pastors and the communications they make with their members, their sermons, and their speeches as fair game.”
He said it was nothing more than a “strong-arm intimidation tactic to silence these pastors.”
“They are sending a message that you better not go up against City Hall on these issues,” Stanley added.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had a strong reaction to the city of Houston's latest move. He told me Friday, "this head-fake might fool some, but the reality is, Mayor Parker didn’t need a subpoena to access those sermons in the first place. "They were already public," he said.
"In this ‘new’ filing, the mayor still insists on seeing private emails, texts, and other communications related to the mayor’s office and the city’s Bathroom Bill.’ While two words – ‘or sermons’ – are dropped from the ‘revised’ subpoena, the government intrusion into private religious affairs remains. The ‘revised’ subpoena is a difference without a distinction."
Alliance Defending Freedom said they will move forward with a request to quash the subpoenas. Regardless of the outcome, the pastors will not turn over any documents to the city.
As Senator Cruz so eloquently said, Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/17/houston-to-pastors-forget-your-sermons-now-want-your-speeches/
-
BB, if the articles from your 2 posts are the only reading you've done about why the city of Houston has issued subpoenas for communications about HERO by some its religious leaders, it's no wonder that you don't seem to understand what's going on.
Sheee-it, if it were up to me, I'd yank the tax-exempt status from churches that engage in political activity like organizing referendums and the like.
-
BB, if the articles from your 2 posts are the only reading you've done about why the city of Houston has issued subpoenas for communications about HERO by some its religious leaders, it's no wonder that you don't seem to understand what's going on.
Sheee-it, if it were up to me, I'd yank the tax-exempt status from churches that engage in political activity like organizing referendums and the like.
You don't see what a blatant and troubling violation of the First Amendment this is by trying to subpoena pastors sermons involving homosexuality? This is indefensible. I honestly thought the only person who would be condoning this was the Village Idiot, but I guess I was wrong. :-\
-
You don't see what a blatant and troubling violation of the First Amendment this is by trying to subpoena pastors sermons involving homosexuality? This is indefensible. I honestly thought the only person who would be condoning this was the Village Idiot, but I guess I was wrong. :-\
"Condoning"? I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that you don't seem to understand the situation if all you've read are the 2 articles you've posted.
If that's wrong, then see if you can summarize issue. Bonus points if you can explain the reasoning for BOTH sides.
Super-extra bonus points if you use the legal term "discovery", lol.
-
"Condoning"? I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that you don't seem to understand the situation if all you've read are the 2 articles you've posted.
If that's wrong, then see if you can summarize issue. Bonus points if you can explain the reasoning for BOTH sides.
Super-extra bonus points if you use the legal term "discovery", lol.
How about you stop using cryptic language and just say why you think it's not a trampling of the First Amendment for the government to subpoena sermons given by pastors that mention homosexuality?
Bonus if you can do it without making a complete fool of yourself. :)
-
How about you stop using cryptic language and just say why you think it's not a trampling of the First Amendment for the government to subpoena sermons given by pastors that mention homosexuality?
Bonus if you can do it without making a complete fool of yourself. :)
What's cryptic about me suggesting that I don't think you understand what's going on?
Do you think you understand the story?
Seriously, it's no big thing if you say you don't -- Both of those articles you posted would have just about anyone scratching their head afterwards if they were asked why they think that those subpoenas were issued.
Let me know if you're interested to know more and I'll copy-pasta an article that should find informative. (I'm not saying that you'll change your mind about whether you object to the subpoenas being issued but you'll definitely have a better understanding of why they were issued in the first place.)
-
What's cryptic about me suggesting that I don't think you understand what's going on?
Do you think you understand the story?
Seriously, it's no big thing if you say you don't -- Both of those articles you posted would have just about anyone scratching their head afterwards if they were asked why they think that those subpoenas were issued.
Let me know if you're interested to know more and I'll copy-pasta an article that should find informative. (I'm not saying that you'll change your mind about whether you object to the subpoenas being issued but you'll definitely have a better understanding of why they were issued in the first place.)
Dude stop trying to bait me. If you have something you want to say about this issue, then just say it.
-
Dude stop trying to bait me. If you have something you want to say about this issue, then just say it.
You don't sound so interested so I'll pass for now, I think.
lol. You've pulled that, "I didn't read the article because blah, blah, blah" too many times.
Leading horse to water and all that...
Besides, only the religious folks here might be interested and since the story is fairly involved, it's not really their cup of tea.
-
You don't sound so interested so I'll pass for now, I think.
lol. You've pulled that, "I didn't read the article because blah, blah, blah" too many times.
Leading horse to water and all that...
Besides, only the religious folks here might be interested and since the story is fairly involved, it's not really their cup of tea.
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. :)
-
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]
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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/