[Newsbot]

Title: Subpoenas for Sermons in Houston Draw Outrage
Category: Religion
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2014-10-18 07:43:52

[N_Fiddledog]

"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."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/ ... -speeches/

[andyt]

It's about time that govt started monitoring what gets said in religious institutions. Too many anti-social messages being freely promulgated. We probably need laws that force places of worship to be open to the public and have govt monitors there at all times. Preferably with video cameras to make sure we have solid evidence if anti-social ideas are being preached.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

It's about time that govt started monitoring what gets said in religious institutions. Too many anti-social messages being freely promulgated. We probably need laws that force places of worship to be open to the public and have govt monitors there at all times. Preferably with video cameras to make sure we have solid evidence if anti-social ideas are being preached.

You're being intentionally silly, because you're worried people might go after the radicalizing, terrorist Imams in the mosques, right?

I don't care, I just want to be sure I'm interpreting correctly.

[andyt]

I want them to go after radicalizing Imams. But we live in an equitable society, so they have to go after everybody. If hate speech is being promulgated in a religious center, well that's illegal and should be followed up.

[fifeboy]

andyt andyt:

I want them to go after radicalizing Imams. But we live in an equitable society, so they have to go after everybody. If hate speech is being promulgated in a religious center, well that's illegal and should be followed up.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

I want them to go after radicalizing Imams. But we live in an equitable society, so they have to go after everybody. If hate speech is being promulgated in a religious center, well that's illegal and should be followed up.

Sure, I get it...so, like an Imam indoctrinating for ISIS recruitment or pushing for more local suicide bombers, that's exactly the same thing as a Reverend who gives a sermon suggesting his flock vote no in the plebiscite pushing for men in dresses using a woman's washroom, right?

[andyt]

WHo knows what they're preaching in those dens of iniquity. I just want tabs kept on all of them, charge the ones that contravene the law. How can you know that all they're having is a tranny fit when you don't monitor them. Dominionists represent a much greater threat to the US remaining secular than the Muslims do, just by force of numbers and the positions of power they hold. This evil must be stamped out just as much as attempts to bring in Sharia.

[Thanos]

I like how the religious are the ones to start screaming "separation of church and state!" whenever the government takes a close look at some of their political activities but they're also the first ones to completely ignore the same principle when they're trying to barge into other people's personal lives. No, you can't have a copy of my sermon but, yes, I have the duty given to me by God to send the police over to your house to make sure you're not having the devil's gay secks, or listening to the devil's rock and/or roll, or smoking the devil's wacky-tobaccky. Rights are for Christians only, the rest of you can move back to Russia if you don't like it!

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

WHo knows what they're preaching in those dens of iniquity. I just want tabs kept on all of them, charge the ones that contravene the law. How can you know that all they're having is a tranny fit when you don't monitor them. Dominionists represent a much greater threat to the US remaining secular than the Muslims do, just by force of numbers and the positions of power they hold. This evil must be stamped out just as much as attempts to bring in Sharia.

Yeah I get it. Everything is relative. Nothing is actually good or bad. One thing's always the same as another. The fact that one is criminal where the other is not is a moot point, right? If one must be monitored, because criminality is reported, the other must be monitored just in case, right?

One thing I always wondered about prog logic though. Aren't you guys ever afraid you might bite yourself in the ass with it? Because if we use the same trick of equivalency this is what you're saying. Bring on Big Brother. Cause if we need those anti-tranny in women's bathrooms guys monitored, maybe people in general, (even you) should have closed circuit monitoring in your homes, right? You might say something politically incorrect, and we need to know about it, right?

Don't you get it. Once you're brain is programmed to accept equivalency without discrimination all nonsense starts to makes sense. Ask George.

[Thanos]

Nice word salad, Sarah.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Nice word salad, Sarah.

Still can't make sense of the sensible, eh?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

It's about time that govt started monitoring what gets said in religious institutions. Too many anti-social messages being freely promulgated. We probably need laws that force places of worship to be open to the public and have govt monitors there at all times. Preferably with video cameras to make sure we have solid evidence if anti-social ideas are being preached.

For someone who whines as much as you do about Charter and Constitutional rights, you sure are quick to toss them by the roadside when they don't suit your personal POV.
Should we do the same for left-wing groups as well? Considering that extremist left-wingers are pretty much the only ones responsible for successfully carrying out terrorist attacks on Canadian institutions and infrastructure.

[Thanos]

The natural trade off should be that the preachers can make their hate-sermons all they want as long as they leave others alone. But they're not going to do that because they're a pack of Christian supremacists with a long tradition of never ever leaving anyone else alone. Zero-sum game. All for them, none for anyone else. As such it's perfectly legitimate for the state to go after them because they've never hesitated in using their influence over the state to go after others. Kind of a basic quid pro quo, but by referencing some kind of Latin phrase I'm clearly showing that I'm some kind of Jaaaaaaayzus-hating Communist or something.

[xerxes]

It's not so cut and dry, this issue:

$1:

When I first saw the story, I dismissed it as a hoax. The City of Houston had served subpoenas on local pastors who had participated in a petition drive against a city ordinance, known as HERO, which prohibits discrimination against LGBT persons. The subpoenas demanded that the pastors turn over “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.”

What could justify such an intrusive request? Not only the pastors’ own statements—that would be troubling enough—but statements the pastors had revised, approved, or just kept in their possession, about homosexuality and gender identity. And about the mayor herself. There must be more to the story, I thought.

It turns out there is a bit more to the story—but the episode is nonetheless very unsettling. When the city rejected the petition on the ground that the signatures were invalid, some opponents of HERO—not the pastors themselves—challenged the city’s decision in court. The city issued the subpoenas in connection with that litigation. The theory, as I understand it, is that because these pastors helped organize the petition drive and hosted meetings, the pastors’ statements about the petition are important. I guess the idea is that the pastors may have said something that induced phony signatures.

Now, given the rules of pretrial discovery, one must concede that there is some plausibility in the city’s argument—some. In an American lawsuit, attorneys can ask for all sorts of information before trial, even if that information is not strictly relevant to the litigation, as long as the information seems reasonably likely to lead to relevant and admissible evidence. This broad standard is meant to allow parties to uncover all the facts. So when the city says it would like to know what the pastors may have said about the petition drive itself, that’s not a completely untenable position, given the freewheeling rules of American pretrial litigation.

But there are other very important considerations. The broad standard for discovery can lead to so-called “fishing expeditions” that seek to harass and intimidate litigants and encourage them to back off. As a result, courts generally have wide discretion to reject requests for information that are overly broad and unduly burdensome to the opposing party. In a context like this one, which raises very sensitive First Amendment concerns, courts must be especially careful.

The pastors have moved to quash the subpoenas. They should and will likely succeed, largely if not completely. Indeed, in response to complaints, including from some defenders of LGBT rights, Mayor Parker and the Houston City Attorney have already indicated that they think the subpoenas are too broad and should be rewritten. (They blame the misunderstanding on pro-bono attorneys the city retained to handle the litigation.) Maybe the court will allow subpoenas with respect to statements directly related to the petition drive, but that’s as far as it’s likely to go. I wonder if the court will allow even that.

Still, even if these pastors succeed in resisting the subpoenas, significant damage has been done. It’s hard to see how this episode will not chill religious and political expression. Most people, quite rationally, want nothing to do with lawsuits and subpoenas. They don’t want to make legal history. The lesson they will draw from the episode is this: If you want to avoid trouble, don’t make politically-charged statements about religious convictions that the government doesn’t approve, even if you’re at a private meeting in your own church. In fact, don’t revise or retain such statements. Otherwise, who knows? You may one day have to lawyer up.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/10/whats-happening-in-houston