7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
If Muslims were suspected of saying hateful things would there be the same outcry against a subpoena? I don't really see why 'religious freedoms' are a good enough reason not to comply, separation of church and state doesn't mean you don't have to answer to the state of you don't want to.
11194
Post by: Krellnus
What Howard said pretty much.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Howard A Treesong wrote:If Muslims were suspected of saying hateful things would there be the same outcry against a subpoena? I don't really see why 'religious freedoms' are a good enough reason not to comply, separation of church and state doesn't mean you don't have to answer to the state of you don't want to.
Muslims are suspected of saying hateful things here, but I haven't heard of any subpoenas for them, although it may have been tried.
Letting the state in to approve sermons? I don't think so.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
C&P for the work blocked?
11194
Post by: Krellnus
After calling church sermons “fair game” for subpoena, Houston Mayor Annise Parker backed down Wednesday from the city’s effort to force local pastors to turn over speeches and papers related to a hotly contested transgender rights ordinance.
The city had asked five pastors for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons” on a variety of topics, including the mayor, and “gender identity.”
The subpoena prompted a storm of criticism when it became public Tuesday. The pastors are involved in legal efforts to overturn the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, also known as the “bathroom bill.”
The pastors and their allies called the city’s broad demand a threat to religious freedom and proof that gay and transgender rights bills can be used as weapons to demonize Christianity.
“The government has no business asking pastors to turn over their sermons,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican.
Ms. Parker’s office initially doubled down in the face of such criticism but issued a statement late Wednesday saying the mayor “agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastors’ sermons.”
The statement says the city will “move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing” and that city attorney David Feldman “says the focus should be only on communications related to the petitions to overturn the ordinance.”
Joe La Rue, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has moved to quash the subpoenas, called the mayor’s turnaround “wholly inadequate.”
He noted that the city still appears to want some sermons and other documents related to the lawsuit over the petition drive, which the city rejected after saying too many of the signatures were invalid.
“These sermons, emails and texts have nothing to do with whether the coalition gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot,” Mr. La Rue said.
The city’s statement added that the subpoenas were issued by “pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance” and “Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until [Tuesday].”
However, Ms. Parker, a self-declared lesbian, defended the subpoenas after she was aware of them, according to her Wednesday afternoon statement.
In a post on her Twitter feed late Tuesday, around midnight, Ms. Parker said that issuing subpoenas for sermons was appropriate if the pastors had been active in promoting the signature-gathering effort to overturn the ordinance.
“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game,” Ms. Parker said on Twitter. “Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?”
Her tweets also chided what she called biased reporting and lamented “how little fact checking is done.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/15/houston-backs-off-church-sermon-subpoenas-in-trans/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz3GObLcA6B
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I would suggest that if there is evidence of people giving speeches or committing acts which are deemed to be against the law or which would be counted as evidence for a case being seen in a court of law (and here I know that the US and UK differ on what is and isn't illegal to say/do), then it would be quite reasonable to ask for transcripts of sermons.
Recordings of public speaking events in the UK have been used in the courts (from what I remember) as evidence of people advocating illegal acts or practising hate speech or just clarifying what was and what was not said etc.
Again - I am not quite sure on the legal foundations of this in the USA, but if it is legal to send out subpoenas for for this kind of thing then I have no issue with them being sent out, even if it is to churches, temples, sacred glades, etc...
12313
Post by: Ouze
There is no sort of confidentiality privilege I am aware of for sermons. If someone confessed they had broken the law to a priest during confession, sure, that's privileged and that veil can't be pierced.
However, if for example: a priest gave a sermon that exhorted his clergy to vote a certain way, or some other political lobbying, that would be a violation of various tax exemption statutes and so subpoenaing such sermons would be both legal and justified.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Howard A Treesong wrote:If Muslims were suspected of saying hateful things would there be the same outcry against a subpoena? I don't really see why 'religious freedoms' are a good enough reason not to comply, separation of church and state doesn't mean you don't have to answer to the state of you don't want to.
Thats not a sane argument.
What part of "I want the sermons of churches because some members went there who signed a petition" is in any way a coherent argument to you? Attorneys took this case pro-bono just to fight it.
The AG sent a letter telling them to cut this gak out and the City immediately backed off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SilverMK2 wrote:I would suggest that if there is evidence of people giving speeches or committing acts which are deemed to be against the law or which would be counted as evidence for a case being seen in a court of law (and here I know that the US and UK differ on what is and isn't illegal to say/do), then it would be quite reasonable to ask for transcripts of sermons.
Sorry. This is the US. There is no law to break when it comes to speech After all this is isn't a university.  This is a suppression inquiry designed to intimidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:There is no sort of confidentiality privilege I am aware of for sermons. If someone confessed they had broken the law to a priest during confession, sure, that's privileged and that veil can't be pierced.
However, if for example: a priest gave a sermon that exhorted his clergy to vote a certain way, or some other political lobbying, that would be a violation of various tax exemption statutes and so subpoenaing such sermons would be both legal and justified.
No it wouldn't. They an't theorectially advocate for a particular acandidate. And if that was the reason for the discovery,
1. It would be the IRS doing the investigation, NOT THE CITY IN RESPONSE TO A SUIT FVER THE CITY's ILLEAGALLY IGNORING A VALID PETITION.
2. Every black church in the region would be subpoenaed.
3. Again, this has nothing to do with the city. The city in no way is related to whether or not a hruch violated tax laws. Automatically Appended Next Post: From the motion to quash this nonsense:
Moreover, the discovery requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious. They are so much so, in fact, that it appears they were designed to punish the Nonparty Pastors for being part of the coalition that invoked the City Charter’s referendum provision, and discourage them and other citizens from ever doing so again. The message is clear: oppose the decisions of city government, and drown in unwarranted, burdensome discovery requests. These requests, if allowed, will have a chilling effect on future citizens who might consider circulating referendum petitions because they are dissatisfied with ordinances passed by the City Council. Not only will the Nonparty Pastors be harmed if these discovery requests are allowed, but the People will suffer as well. The referendum process will become toxic and the People will be deprived of an important check on city government provided them by the Charter.
12313
Post by: Ouze
1.) learn2quote.
2.) A church that engages in political lobbying is violating tax law. This is not an opinion and no matter what confused derp you might want to throw IN ALL CAPS or throw up some #whataboutism nothing changes that. I'm not arguing THIS church did that, simply stating a general fact.
If, another hypothetical example, a sermon was issued in a hypothetical church demanding that all left handed gingers be decapitated, this is an incitement (among other things, obviously) and so any such sermons that referenced this would be subpoenable*. There is no privilege for sermons.
*is that a word?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 Frazzled wrote:Sorry. This is the US. There is no law to break when it comes to speech After all this is isn't a university. This is a suppression inquiry designed to intimidate.
There are quite a few instances that I can think of off the top of my head where "free speech" is curtailed in the United States. Indeed, where you would be subject to punishment under the law. Shouting "fire" in a theatre being the simplest and most well known example. Ouze highlights incitement (which is similar to UK law) and religious institutions carrying out political lobbying and tax law, both of which would limit what a representative of the church could speak about in an official capacity, which includes the delivery of sermons.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:1.) learn2quote.
2.) A church that engages in political lobbying is violating tax law. This is not an opinion and no matter what confused derp you might want to throw IN ALL CAPS or throw up some #whataboutism nothing changes that. I'm not arguing THIS church did that, simply stating a general fact.
If, another hypothetical example, a sermon was issued in a hypothetical church demanding that all left handed gingers be decapitated, this is an incitement (among other things, obviously) and so any such sermons that referenced this would be subpoenable*. There is no privilege for sermons.
*is that a word?
1. NO.
A church that engages in candidate advocacy is violating federal tax rules. Polticial lobbying is issue advocay and they can do that all day long.
2. Thats is the purview of the IRS, NOT the City of Houston defending itself against a civil lawsuit related to ignoring a petition.
Its shocking that you don't see the Big Brother intimidation here. Its effectively a SLAPP suit.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Again, I was arguing in general, not in this specific case. Relapse seems to be under the impression any sermon and it's contents are priveleged.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:Again, I was arguing in general, not in this specific case. Relapse seems to be under the impression any sermon and it's contents are priveleged.
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/The-Restriction-of-Political-Campaign-Intervention-by-Section-501(c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Organizations
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Automatically Appended Next Post: SilverMK2 wrote: Frazzled wrote:Sorry. This is the US. There is no law to break when it comes to speech After all this is isn't a university. This is a suppression inquiry designed to intimidate.
There are quite a few instances that I can think of off the top of my head where "free speech" is curtailed in the United States. Indeed, where you would be subject to punishment under the law. Shouting "fire" in a theatre being the simplest and most well known example. Ouze highlights incitement (which is similar to UK law) and religious institutions carrying out political lobbying and tax law, both of which would limit what a representative of the church could speak about in an official capacity, which includes the delivery of sermons.
You just cited...ONE instance.
Please note where political speech is prohibited in the US (outside of universities  sorry I'm a member of FIRE too)
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes, I'm aware all of that is true. You're not disproving what I said. In fact, you're affirming that some forms of political lobbying, in the form of a sermon, would be unlawful and so a totally valid use of a subpoena from an investigating agency.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ouze wrote:Yes, I'm aware all of that is true. You're not disproving what I said. In fact, you're affirming that some forms of political lobbying, in the form of a sermon, would be unlawful and so a totally valid use of a subpoena from an investigating agency.
I'd have loved to see these subpeonas occur in 2012....
Can you imagine how many fewer tax-exempt churches there would be in the US?
12313
Post by: Ouze
I would as well. There were quite a few religious organizations that I believe engaged in unlawful lobbying, and they essentially dared the IRS to do something about it. The IRS acted super cowardly in not doing so.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
So, demonstrating that "free speech" is not a guarantee of being able to say whatever you want whenever you want to highlight the fact that "free speech" is not a guarantee of being able to say whatever you want whenever you want isn't enough when your argument appears to be "you can say whatever you want without any trouble at all times" ? 
221
Post by: Frazzled
SilverMK2 wrote:
So, demonstrating that "free speech" is not a guarantee of being able to say whatever you want whenever you want to highlight the fact that "free speech" is not a guarantee of being able to say whatever you want whenever you want isn't enough when your argument appears to be "you can say whatever you want without any trouble at all times" ?
Answer the question. When is political speech limited in the US?
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://americanvision.org/11407/houston-demanding-oversight-pastors-sermons/
Several people have contacted me over the recent Fox News headline, “City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons.” WND.com was even broader: “Houston demands oversight of sermons.” There is no doubt that the Mayor and City Council are radical and aggressive LGBT activists trying to advance their agenda against all morality and the will of the people in the actual subject matter behind these headlines. But the actual case does not warrant these alarming headlines, and our activists ought to be more responsible.
I write this only to calm some of the unnecessary alarm, and to introduce some reason and understanding into the mix. The headlines read as if the city has made some move to start monitoring all pastors’ sermons, and this simply is not the case. It also gives the impression that this is some out-of-the-blue, general attack tactic by the activists upon the pulpit. It is not. It is not out-of-the-blue, it is not broad and general as far as the implicated pastors goes, and it should not be a surprise at all.
The City is not making a move to monitor sermons. The city is merely responding to a lawsuit against it and using standard powers of discovery in regard to a handful of pastors who are implicated as relevant to the lawsuit. The issue is here: once you file a lawsuit, you open up yourself and potentially your friends and acquaintances to discovery. This is the aspect that has not been reported, but it is an important part of the context.
This is basic court procedure. But the headlines make it sound like a surprise attack by leftists advancing their agenda on unsuspecting Christians.
Even the Alliance Defending Freedom’s (they are representing the plaintiffs who filed suit) write up gives the impression that this is an attack on irrelevant bystanders, saying “the pastors are not even involved.” That’s not necessarily true. The pastors are not a party in the lawsuit, true, but at least some of them are quite possibly “involved,” and that’s a significant point. To the extent they are involved, Texas court rules (like most court rules) give allowance for discovery of evidence in their associations with the parties to the suit and the subject matter of it.
What is “discovery of evidence”? Is this some liberal tactic that has perverted our legal system? No, it is civil legal procedure 101. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but that’s the point: this is basic stuff. Once a case enters litigation, both sides have fairly broad—although protected and defined—allowances to demand papers, communications, etc., related to or potentially related to the subject matter of the case. Why? Because any relevant or related material may produce evidence crucial to the case. It’s a basic legal right that is important to justice in the big picture.
Further, it is not unprecedented at all for people who are not party to the case to be ordered by the court either to testify or produce materials during the discovery phase. That is what a subpoena is. It happens all the time, because even if you’re not actually a party in the suit, you may in fact have interacted with them in such a way and on relevant topics that your interactions are crucial, or at least relevant, to the case.
Let’s consider an example to which Christians can relate. Suppose an openly Christian mayor attended, during office hours, a Day of Prayer event outside the Mayor’s Office Building on a given date. I have no problem with that, of course, but suppose a local atheist group objected and filed a lawsuit. Let’s suppose further that behind the scenes, a Marxist nonprofit group, members of which are friends and colleagues with the atheist group, was possibly helping fund and coordinate the lawsuit for the purposes of destroying the mayor’s reputation and taking over the local city council. Yet the Marxist group is not a party to the suit. Would the mayor, now a defendant under fire, be legally interested in the communications taking place between those groups? Could those correspondences and even group speeches be relevant to the case? Could they exonerate the mayor? Maybe, maybe not. What if, possibly, those communications contain the only evidence that could exonerate the accused? Is it reasonable that those communications could at least lead to the discovery of relevant evidence important to the mayor’s defense? Depending on the nature of the claims filed, absolutely.
Now just flip the ideological sides in the scenario, and you have, essentially, the case before us. The Mayor is an open lesbian and LGBT activist. The City Council recently passed an ordinance that would allow transgenders to cross bathrooms in public. Predictable and rightful outrage ensued from Christians and conservatives. A local group of 400 pastors opposed the measure. Some of them apparently have connections with a petition drive, organization, coordination, and possibly even funding of the petition drive to overturn the ordinance. Then, when the mayor apparently overstepped her authority in rejecting signatures on the petition (that were already certified), a group of Christians and conservatives allegedly connected with this group of pastors filed a lawsuit. Do you think the defendants might be interested in the communications between those groups?
And what happens when you file a lawsuit? You open up yourself and your relevant friends to discovery. Are the correspondences between these pastors and the Christian parties who filed the suit relevant to the case? It is possible that a judge could determine this is the case. That is what this subpoena is about.
And as any savvy lawyer would do, the defendants’ attorneys cast the largest net possible in requesting information. In my opinion, it is unnecessarily broad. In my opinion, the vast nature of demands violates several of the checks and precedents built into the court’s rules for discovery. Even the Houston Chronicle called it “an unusual step.” But that’s part of what’s good about it. Those checks are there for a reason. Let’s be calm and file a demand that they be followed first before we cry end of the world. And sure enough, ADF’s motion to quash, or at least modify the subpoena, cites these very principles and checks. I think it is both perfectly justified and will be upheld by the court.
I think the court will probably not quash the subpoena entirely. I believe it will, however, require it to be modified with a much stricter scope. Of course, this will also depend upon the nature of the charges made in the original suit (which I have not yet been able to access), and the nature of the defense being made against those charges. But I doubt these pastors will ultimately be required to submit anything anywhere near what the defense demanded, if anything.
But what bothers me most here are the fear-mongering headlines. This is not an attack on all Houston area pastors, and no impression should be allowed in that regard. It is a routine court procedure, not even final yet, against a handful a pastors—and only because they are implicated in a court case filed.
But here’s the kicker in this particular case: as with all cases, all parties and their lawyers knew these rules before they filed suit. The city’s move should have been no surprise to anyone. They should have expected it—especially from liberal activists, who as we all know, are ruthless, restless, and play dirty.
So why are the headlines giving a different impression? I don’t know, but I can say that such fear-mongering could be used for some killer fundraising. I hope this is not the motivation.
It also plays into the overarching premillennial narrative of declining Christian influence in society. But actually, in this case, the reverse true. The orderly rules of discovery and evidence we have in place are the heritage of a Christian society which values rule of law and fair play—especially for the accused. Is it the case that miscreants can use these laws to their advantage, or even abuse them to a degree? Yes, but I would prefer that to the alternatives. As Paul Scofield said, for Sir Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons, “I’d give the devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.”
Fear mongering is not needed, and in fact is unwarranted and damaging to the Kingdom of Christ in general. It is irresponsible to the real task at hand. What we need on this particular issue right now is a bit of courageous patience. It may be worth noticing that a former attempt to defeat the bathroom ordinance in question directly via a separate court order was rejected by the court because it believed adequate remedy was available through the appeals process with the current suit filed. Like it or not, such remedies sometimes take time.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:Answer the question. When is political speech limited in the US?
When lobbying for a candidate within a certain distance of a voting location on election day?
Now, move the goalposts again, Lucy.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Of course sermons are discoverable. This is not a First Amendment issue at all.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Frazzled wrote:Answer the question. When is political speech limited in the US?
I will defer to Ouze, as my knowledge of American law on this point is not large
However, as that was not the question you asked me (nor did it appear you even asked a question in the original post in this particular chain), I am not quite sure why you are so antsy
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Manchu wrote:Of course sermons are discoverable. This is not a First Amendment issue at all.
Thats not the issue. The issue, and you know it, is that this doiscovery has to be related to the underlying cause. Everyone who has looked at this is calling foul, adn its why the mayor backed off so quickly.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote: Manchu wrote:Of course sermons are discoverable. This is not a First Amendment issue at all.
Thats not the issue. The issue, and you know it, is that this doiscovery has to be related to the underlying cause. Everyone who has looked at this is calling foul, adn its why the mayor backed off so quickly.
Well, pretty early in the thread it was suggested that sermons are sacrosanct.
Relapse wrote:[Letting the state in to approve sermons? I don't think so.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: Frazzled wrote: Manchu wrote:Of course sermons are discoverable. This is not a First Amendment issue at all.
Thats not the issue. The issue, and you know it, is that this doiscovery has to be related to the underlying cause. Everyone who has looked at this is calling foul, adn its why the mayor backed off so quickly.
Well, pretty early in the thread it was suggested that sermons are sacrosanct.
Relapse wrote:[Letting the state in to approve sermons? I don't think so.
They are. This is an intimidation move.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
The pastors and their allies called the city’s broad demand a threat to religious freedom and proof that gay and transgender rights bills can be used as weapons to demonize Christianity.
Sorry, but y'all do plenty of things to "demonize" yourselves. Don't need any help from the government.
IF the city was merely trying to see another side to the issue, or a "rebuttal" to a debate, there's probably a better way to have gone about getting transcripts of the sermons they were after. As it is, this is a whole lot of nothing... But using a subpoena, the moral traditionalists will now be able to say, "SEE!!!! They's comin' after us!!" (well, even more than usual) while the more "liberal" left will be saying, "They have something to hide! Why don't they let us see what they're talking about?" Some will go so far as to say that this is "proof" that churches and christianity are evil
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
One other thing to remember in this case is, that the article mentioned no evidence for any lobbying within the churches. Because of this, the request seems to be more about intimidation.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote: Ouze wrote:Well, pretty early in the thread it was suggested that sermons are sacrosanct.
Relapse wrote:[Letting the state in to approve sermons? I don't think so.
They are. This is an intimidation move.
No, they're not. They are totally discoverable, totally, and not protected from violations of tax law, in addition to other restrictions, and all the usual restrictions free speech has everywhere else (yelling fire, incitement, etc etc).
Whether or not it's an intimidation move in this specific case. I have not opined.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Relapse wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:If Muslims were suspected of saying hateful things would there be the same outcry against a subpoena? I don't really see why 'religious freedoms' are a good enough reason not to comply, separation of church and state doesn't mean you don't have to answer to the state of you don't want to.
Muslims are suspected of saying hateful things here, but I haven't heard of any subpoenas for them, although it may have been tried.
Letting the state in to approve sermons? I don't think so.
Many religious teachings are contentious, regarding other faiths, sexuality, adultry and other issues. Society has been conditioned to assume that professing opinions on thee subjects is 'hateful;' even when there is no evidence of such. For example, I know of many pastors who will say homosexuality is wrong from a biblical perspective, and are not homophobes. The churches (and for that matter other faiths) have every right to teach that the secular status quo is wrong.
Nowadays even holding opinion can be labeled a hate crime. Most religions are mutually exclusive and most teach some form of abstinence from some of the activities and opinions in mainstream society. And so long as they don't express the differences with violence they should be entitled to them.
Tha\t being said, if a direct criminal offence is plotted in a place of worship, or a minister calls fro the congregation to break the law then there would be justifiable reason to investigate, and churches should comply with that.
If the attempted supoena was about 'gender identity' then it's fair speech to make comment on this, as its a Biblical issue, and not as one supporter of the subpeoena suggests a political one. Christians also should not be singled out Moslems and Jews have very similar ideologies, but no one wants to go hound a synagogue.
A message need not be hatred to be subject to others intolerance, and there is no justifiable call for groups opposed to religious teachings to criminalise said teachings unless there is genuine concern for harm.
To recycle a phrase from the LGBT awareness movement:
Some people are religious, get over it.
Also:
Howard A Treesong wrote:If Muslims were suspected of saying hateful things would there be the same outcry against a subpoena? I don't really see why 'religious freedoms' are a good enough reason not to comply, separation of church and state doesn't mean you don't have to answer to the state of you don't want to.
Though this case is in the US, Howard A TreeSong is from the UK. In the UK there is a gross disparity in how religions are handled. Moslems have far more leeway. It took five years to get Abu Hamza out of the mosques and several more to take him off the streets, even though he preached violent jihad. Churches that are insufficiently progressive as shut down a lot sooner. In fact a lot of religious activities are handled in a lobsided manner. Christian prison visitation was stopped because of the supposed clash with secular values, but Islamic prison visitation was not. Years down the line many Islamic fundamentalists including some from high profile cases were converted in prison.
121
Post by: Relapse
Ouze wrote:Again, I was arguing in general, not in this specific case. Relapse seems to be under the impression any sermon and it's contents are priveleged.
If someone was preaching " kill X,Y, or Z", or some serious civil disruption, I would expect the law enforcement agencies to be investigating that church. In this case, though, as Fraz said, the mayor backed down rather quickly because both the people fighting the subpoena and she realized she had over extended herself.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Sienisoturi wrote:One other thing to remember in this case is, that the article mentioned no evidence for any lobbying within the churches. Because of this, the request seems to be more about intimidation.
Exactly.
4402
Post by: CptJake
It would seem Article 1, sections 6 and 8 of the Texas constitution should cover this.
68355
Post by: easysauce
So,
is this bathroom bill basically the "cissy" episode from south park?
Anyone have a good rund down of what it actually does?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I can't paste it. Maybe others can
http://www.houstontx.gov/equal_rights_ordinance.pdf
EDIT: I think this was what the petition was generated about:
The bathroom beef
The ordinance applies to businesses that serve the public, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt. Violators can be fined up to $5,000.
Again Thursday, Miller referenced opponents' central bugaboo regarding the ordinance, the perceived threat of male sexual predators dressed in drag entering women's restrooms, saying, "We're standing up to protect our women and our children." Foes have dubbed the measure the "Sexual Predator Protection Act."
The ordinance protects transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex, but puts the onus on the individual to prove he or she was a victim of discrimination.
Parker, clearly exasperated, decried opponents' "mystifying" and "strange obsession" with where transgender men and women use the bathroom.
"It is illegal today to go into a place of public accommodation for the intent of committing a crime. It was illegal before, it's going to be illegal after," Parker said.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Equal-rights-law-opponents-deliver-signatures-5599272.php
12313
Post by: Ouze
This gist of the ordinance is
The ordinance applies to businesses that serve the public, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt. Violators can be fined up to $5,000.
The ordinance protects transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex, but puts the onus on the individual to prove he or she was a victim of discrimination.
sauce
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Ouze wrote:This gist of the ordinance is
The ordinance applies to businesses that serve the public, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt. Violators can be fined up to $5,000.
The ordinance protects transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex, but puts the onus on the individual to prove he or she was a victim of discrimination.
sauce
So..... any dude wearing a kilt can use the ladies' room, so long as he identifies it as a "skirt" ??
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sounds like both the ordinance, the issue, and the petition is stupid because its a nonissue. I didn't think it was illegal in the first place.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:Sounds like both the ordinance, the issue, and the petition is stupid because its a nonissue. I didn't think it was illegal in the first place.
Transgender is not a protected class federally, nor in Texas, nor in Houston (previously) as far as I can tell. As such a transgender person could legally be discriminated against based on gender presentation.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ouze wrote:This gist of the ordinance is
The ordinance applies to businesses that serve the public, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt. Violators can be fined up to $5,000.
The ordinance protects transgender residents' ability to use the restroom consistent with their gender expression, regardless of their biological sex, but puts the onus on the individual to prove he or she was a victim of discrimination.
sauce
So..... any dude wearing a kilt can use the ladies' room, so long as he identifies it as a "skirt" ??
What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously suggesting that that is equivalent to being transgender?
12313
Post by: Ouze
... And if we allow gay marriages, people will marry turtles - at some point you gotta just shrug and ignore it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
According to the pastors, this is a First Amendment issue. But it actually isn't one. Frazzled wrote:The issue, and you know it, is that this doiscovery has to be related to the underlying cause. Everyone who has looked at this is calling foul, adn its why the mayor backed off so quickly.
What is the underlying cause?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: Frazzled wrote:Sounds like both the ordinance, the issue, and the petition is stupid because its a nonissue. I didn't think it was illegal in the first place.
Transgender is not a protected class federally, nor in Texas, nor in Houston (previously) as far as I can tell. As such a transgender person could legally be discriminated against based on gender presentation.
Not if its not illegal now. Is it? To me its not relevant to the topic. ignoring the legally constituted petition (no matter how stupid) and then the intimidation tactic is the issue here.
12313
Post by: Ouze
It's not illegal now, is what I am saying. It's not a protected class.
68355
Post by: easysauce
sounds like we are trading one groups discomfort for the discomfort of another group.
the double standard also being, that if we allow peoples gender identity to over rule their genetic one, then we have to do this consistantlty across the board.
So if a hispanic man, who identifies as a black woman applies for a scholarship only available to black women, he must be eligible.
221
Post by: Frazzled
What is the underlying cause?
The petition and lawsuit to enforce the petition. Subpeonaing the sermons has zero to do with why the city defending not allowing signatures on the petition.
121
Post by: Relapse
I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
And some guy could go in there anyway.
121
Post by: Relapse
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
16387
Post by: Manchu
On what basis is the city not allowing signatures on the petition?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
It'd also not allowed for those who aren't transgender, funny how that works.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
So, in other words, ban men?
68355
Post by: easysauce
Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
not to mention, pre law bystanders would know something is up if some dude is in the ladies room, and alert people.
post law, that dude in the ladies room is legal and not reportable.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Co'tor Shas wrote:Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
It'd also not allowed for those who aren't transgender, funny how that works.
Do transgender folks have to carry something identifying them as transgender?
Or would the burden of proof be on a cop answering the call of "Some guy is in the gal's restroom"?
121
Post by: Relapse
From ladies rooms, yes. Automatically Appended Next Post: Co'tor Shas wrote:Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
It'd also not allowed for those who aren't transgender, funny how that works.
Spoken like a man without kids that have been attacked.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
What if he wee really cute though. What if he sparkled?
121
Post by: Relapse
Frazzled wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
What if he wee really cute though. What if he sparkled?
I would then send Blade in with her!
12313
Post by: Ouze
Relapse wrote:t's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
You should use this argument in one of the gun control threads.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Co'tor Shas wrote:Relapse wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Relapse wrote:I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.
There might be some guy lurking pretty much anywhere.
It's a lot less likely if they aren't allowed to be there.
It'd also not allowed for those who aren't transgender, funny how that works.
Spoken like a man without kids that have been attacked.
No, spoken like a college student who is friends with a few transgender people. A man could easily dress up as a women (especially if they pretended to b a Muslim and wear a face covering). Trans people often make great efforts to look like the gender that they identify with. For the most part, it would be very hard to tell.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 CptJake wrote:Or would the burden of proof be on a cop answering the call of "Some guy is in the gal's restroom"?
This is already the role of policing: to respond to suspicious calls, and to use their judgement to determine how to handle the situation. To wit:
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:On what basis is the city not allowing signatures on the petition?
Took some effort to find. Best as I can find without looking at the suit itself.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Petition-to-repeal-equal-rights-ordinance-falls-5667654.php
Opponents of Houston's new non-discrimination ordinance did not get enough valid signatures to force a November repeal referendum, Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman announced Monday.
"With respect to the referendum petition filed to repeal the 'HERO' ordinance, there are simply too many documents with irregularities and problems to overlook," Feldman said. "The petition is simply invalid. There is no other conclusion."
The council approved the ordinance on an 11-6 vote in May. Opponents who took issue with the protections extended to gay and transgender people under the ordinance promised to send the issue to the voters. On July 3, they claimed to have delivered more than 50,000 signatures to the city secretary's office.
Opponents needed a minimum of 17,269 valid signatures - 10 percent of the ballots cast in the last mayoral election - to put a referendum on the November ballot. Feldman said some of the petition gatherers did not satisfy the requirements set out for such petitions in the city charter, such as by not being registered Houston voters or by not signing the petition themselves. If such requirements were not met, he said, all the signatures the circulator gathered were invalid.
Less than half of the more than 5,000 pages opponents submitted were valid, Feldman said, leaving the final valid tally at 15,249 signatures.
Dave Welch of the Houston Area Pastor Council helped lead the repeal petition effort. He pledged to fight the Parker's decision in court.
"We were well aware we were dealing with an administration that's willing to bend the rules," Welch said. "Courts typically uphold the rights of the voters. We feel very confident in how that will go. Frankly, there was no respect for the rights of the voters in this process."
The mayor declined to detail her personal feelings on the outcome, instead pointing to the inevitable court fight ahead.
"It is what it is," she said. "As I've said throughout this process, I fully expected there would be legal pressure from one side or the other, however the issue came out. I fully expected it to end up on a ballot, and we would win. If it does not wind up on a ballot, it saves the city a significant amount of money and effort mounting a legal campaign, in addition to the community's efforts on both sides to wage that campaign."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again how that gets to sermons somehow being relevant is preposterous.
Now the mayor, city council, and the sitty attroney are running away as quickly as they can.
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/City-officials-try-to-distance-themselves-from-5825439.php
121
Post by: Relapse
No, spoken like a college student who is friends with a few transgender people. A man could easily dress up as a women (especially if they pretended to b a Muslim and wear a face covering). Trans people often make great efforts to look like the gender that they identify with. For the most part, it would be very hard to tell.
Sorry, but as a father that had someone try to attack one of his daughters your assurances don't wash. There's no need to make it harder than it already is to prevent sexual assaults.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Relapse wrote:Sorry, but as a father that had someone try to attack one of his daughters your assurances don't wash. There's no need to make it harder than it already is to prevent sexual assaults.
It's already unlawful to sexually assault someone. Under this ordinance, it remains just as illegal.
Then venn diagram of "criminals" doesn't automatically overlap with "transgender people".
Ultimately, the appeal to emotion doesn't strengthen your argument that transgender people shouldn't have be a protected class because an unrelated class of people might commit the criminal acts they are already committing anyway.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I don't think he's overlapping them. He's saying criminals could use this law to their advantage.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?
121
Post by: Relapse
Ouze wrote:Relapse wrote:Sorry, but as a father that had someone try to attack one of his daughters your assurances don't wash. There's no need to make it harder than it already is to prevent sexual assaults.
It's already unlawful to sexually assault someone. Under this ordinance, it remains just as illegal.
Then venn diagram of "criminals" doesn't automatically overlap with "transgender people".
Ultimately, the appeal to emotion doesn't strengthen your argument that transgender people shouldn't have be a protected class because an unrelated class of people might commit the criminal acts they are already committing anyway.
Not an appeal to emotion, but common sense. Have some kids and then you'll understand.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ouze wrote:Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?
Aren't they trying to do that?
Oh wait, no. They're trying to ban the ones that criminals don't use. Duh!
Silly me.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes, that's a classic appeal to emotion.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ouze wrote:Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?
Because that is the exact same as not allowing guys into the gal's bathroom.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 cincydooley wrote: Ouze wrote:Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?
Aren't they trying to do that?
Oh wait, no. They're trying to ban the ones that criminals don't use. Duh!
Silly me.
That's called an "analogy". The idea that we should infringe the lawful rights of one class of people because it will stop the already-unlawful acts of someone else.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?
We should ban oxygen. Criminals definitely use oxygen.
121
Post by: Relapse
Feel free to send your daughters when you have them in with guys, then.
Aside from that, the point of this thread is the Houston mayor and her administration being put on the defensive and having to back down trying to squelch non approved church sermons.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Relapse wrote: Ouze wrote:Relapse wrote:Sorry, but as a father that had someone try to attack one of his daughters your assurances don't wash. There's no need to make it harder than it already is to prevent sexual assaults.
It's already unlawful to sexually assault someone. Under this ordinance, it remains just as illegal.
Then venn diagram of "criminals" doesn't automatically overlap with "transgender people".
Ultimately, the appeal to emotion doesn't strengthen your argument that transgender people shouldn't have be a protected class because an unrelated class of people might commit the criminal acts they are already committing anyway.
Not an appeal to emotion, but common sense. Have some kids and then you'll understand.
No, that's solely emotion.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ouze wrote:
Silly me.
That's called an "analogy". The idea that we should infringe the lawful rights of one class of people because it will stop the already-unlawful acts of someone else.
I know. I was being a little sarcastic. Because I must anytime I can point out the silliness of gun bans  I just can't help it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
If you knew someone who had been shot, as I do, you'd feel we should ban guns.
OK, I'll stop, I feel sort of guilty of contributing to that, like, 60% chance any given thread will eventually become about guns in the OT.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Feldman said some of the petition gatherers did not satisfy the requirements set out for such petitions in the city charter, such as by not being registered Houston voters or by not signing the petition themselves. If such requirements were not met, he said, all the signatures the circulator gathered were invalid.
Frazzled wrote:Again how that gets to sermons somehow being relevant is preposterous.
I agree. But it is a question of relevance not a First Amendment question.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ouze wrote:If you knew someone who had been shot, as I do, you'd feel we should ban guns.
No, I wouldn't.
I know two people that have been shot, one of whom I shoot skeet with regularly.
I know people who have gotten alcohol poisoning. I don't think we should ban alcohol.
That's just a weird argument to me.
68355
Post by: easysauce
a penis is a penis, a vagina is a vagina, trans gendered person attached or not.
split bathrooms into "penis" and "vagina" instead of male female, and bam, no more discrimination based on "gender", and children dont get exposed to things their parents do not want.
its also somewhat ironic, that "using a bathroom with people that dont make you feel uncomfortable" is the right of transgendered people (which amendmant to the consittution is that one?)
but not the right of non trans people apparently, as they can easily be as uncomfortable sharing with trans people, as trans people seem to be with sharing with Cis gendered people.
in the same manner, we have government stonewalling a legitimate effort on the churches part, but I doubt they would stone wall such an effort if it was made by a trans group.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
cincydooley wrote: Ouze wrote:If you knew someone who had been shot, as I do, you'd feel we should ban guns.
No, I wouldn't.
I know two people that have been shot, one of whom I shoot skeet with regularly.
I know people who have gotten alcohol poisoning. I don't think we should ban alcohol.
That's just a weird argument to me.
I think he's using it as an example of why relapse's argument doesn't work.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:If you knew someone who had been shot, as I do, you'd feel we should ban guns.
OK, I'll stop, I feel sort of guilty of contributing to that, like, 60% chance any given thread will eventually become about guns in the OT.
horsegak. I still have a piece in my back from one.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Feldman said some of the petition gatherers did not satisfy the requirements set out for such petitions in the city charter, such as by not being registered Houston voters or by not signing the petition themselves. If such requirements were not met, he said, all the signatures the circulator gathered were invalid.
Frazzled wrote:Again how that gets to sermons somehow being relevant is preposterous.
I agree. But it is a question of relevance not a First Amendment question.
On its face I'll agree. The intent however is very much anti-First Amendment.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
 Orlanth wrote: To recycle a phrase from the LGBT awareness movement: Some people are religious, get over it.
People don't choose to be gay, they do choose to believe in gods. Big difference. Also I am amused at people not getting Ouze parodying an argument which was made literally posts before his.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Frazzled wrote: Ouze wrote:If you knew someone who had been shot, as I do, you'd feel we should ban guns.
OK, I'll stop, I feel sort of guilty of contributing to that, like, 60% chance any given thread will eventually become about guns in the OT.
horsegak. I still have a piece in my back from one.
It's an example of a bad argument Frazz'.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ouze wrote:
OK, I'll stop, I feel sort of guilty of contributing to that, like, 60% chance any given thread will eventually become about guns in the OT.
They're the Kevin Bacon of OT topics
16387
Post by: Manchu
I disagree. The First Amendment covers freedom from government censorship in most cases, not freedom from all consequences of making statements. And I don't see how this subpoena has anything at all to do with the establishment clause.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think he's using it as an example of why relapse's argument doesn't work.
Holy gak, if that's the case then I totally missed the mark here.
My bad, Ouze!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:I disagree. The First Amendment covers freedom from government censorship in most cases, not freedom from all consequences of making statements. And I don't see how this subpoena has anything at all to do with the establishment clause.
Its an attempt at intimidation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Its an attempt at intimindation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.
Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Frazzled wrote: Manchu wrote:I disagree. The First Amendment covers freedom from government censorship in most cases, not freedom from all consequences of making statements. And I don't see how this subpoena has anything at all to do with the establishment clause.
Its an attempt at intimindation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.
Intimidation has nothing to do with First. You are still allowed to say it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote: Frazzled wrote:Its an attempt at intimindation. Thats pretty damn anti-FIrst Amendment.
Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?
Government intimidated the exercise of speech by a religion.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Intimidation is not disallowing.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The First Amendment dseals with protection persons against government attack or censorship. A government entity attempting to intimidate pastors in what they are seeing in their sermons - ie in their direct practic of religion is a big hells yes on what the Founding Faddahs were trying to prohibit. Legal? maybe. Does it violate the intent f what the Bill of Rights trying to safeguard, you bet your E-Bola spewing monkey it does.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 d-usa wrote:Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.
The gov't should not be able to interfere with political speech at all, be it from a pastor or from some rival politician or any individual or group.. And the bill of rights in the TX constitution states in part: No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion
and Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.
Define protections?
What part of the First Amendment do you not get?
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote: d-usa wrote:Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.
The gov't should not be able to interfere with political speech at all, be it from a pastor or from some rival politician or any individual or group..
The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:Churches should be free from government interference as long as they don't preach to interfere with government. The moment a church preaches on how to vote they should loose all protections.
Define protections?
What part of the First Amendment do you not get?
Pay your taxes, preach whatever you want. Simple stuff really.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.
Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.
In the incident case, again it has nothing to do with their tax status. The Mayor’s tweet kind of says it all:
“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game,”
As soon as someone shows me how this is in any way related to a suit over whether the city attorney reviewed the signatures on a petition correctly, I’m all ears. Even if I disagree with the petition. its an intimidation move on its face.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote:The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.
Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.
Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).
I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.
77846
Post by: Poly Ranger
Slightly off topic, but:
I always struggle to comprehend how an entire nation as large as the USA holds on so rigidly to a constitution written by men from 227 years ago who had absolutely no idea what the present day would hold, had no idea about many of the scientific, technological and social advances, and would have had no idea as to the mainstream liberal ideas of todays society. How on earth can people just use the words 'first amendment' to immediately stop any debate even if there is a lot of logic to the opposing sides views... It was written almost 100 years before the worlds first public electricity supply for petes sake.
In Britain we don't hold onto the Magna Carta as though it's word is final and cannot be changed to reflect the changing times.
Each to their own. It's just something I will never comprehend.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.
Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.
Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).
I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.
OK. Now in the incident case the Mayor is not related to taxation.
Having said that, I agree with you 100%.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Our constitution is extremely progressive though, and DID in fact factor future technological advances into it by including language to change the constitution.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.
Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.
Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).
I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.
OK. Now in the incident case the Mayor is not related to taxation.
Yeah, I let my general disdain for political churches get the best of me.
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.
Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.
Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).
I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.
So when candidate Obama (or any other candidate) gave (or give) speeches to church congregations, those churches should have forfeited their exemptions?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yes.
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:The gov't should be able to take 20% of the church from every pastor for their political speech. Either be an apolitical 501(c)(3) organization and be tax-exempt, or pay your taxes. These are the rules these churches agreed to abide by then when they applied for tax exemption.
Agreed. BUT, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment, and not what you said. You said lose all protections.
Sorry, they should lose all special protections they get for being a 501(c)(3).
I seriously wish that somebody in the government had the balls to call out all the guys that do the "preach politics from the pulpit and dare the IRS to do something about this" stunt whenever elections come around.
So when candidate Obama (or any other candidate) gave (or give) speeches to church congregations, those churches should have forfeited their exemptions?
They should be investigated to see if they are following guidelines at least, but the IRS won't even do that.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
Poly Ranger wrote:Slightly off topic, but:
I always struggle to comprehend how an entire nation as large as the USA holds on so rigidly to a constitution written by men from 227 years ago who had absolutely no idea what the present day would hold, had no idea about many of the scientific, technological and social advances, and would have had no idea as to the mainstream liberal ideas of todays society. How on earth can people just use the words 'first amendment' to immediately stop any debate even if there is a lot of logic to the opposing sides views... It was written almost 100 years before the worlds first public electricity supply for petes sake.
In Britain we don't hold onto the Magna Carta as though it's word is final and cannot be changed to reflect the changing times.
Each to their own. It's just something I will never comprehend.
I have to ask, that how could you think, that the first adment could be used to stop debates? The only type of debate that it could be used in, is a one where it would be argued about the freedom of speech. However, the freedom of speech is very easy to argue for, so that debate would not be too long anyways, and using simply its authority would be an argumental fallacy, so I can see no cases, in which the constitution is used to silence people.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?
Government intimidated the exercise of speech by a religion.
Sound like you have free speech crossed with free exercise of religion. There are not facts sufficient to show the subpoena was an attempt to restrict free exercise of religion or freedom of speech.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
Ouze wrote:I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.
As I'm not so good with the american law, does anybody know, that are non-religious organisations tax exempt?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote: Frazzled wrote:Subpoenas are used to intimidate people all the time. What makes this case special in terms of being "anti-First Amendment"?
Government intimidated the exercise of speech by a religion.
Sound like you have free speech crossed with free exercise of religion. There are not facts sufficient to show the subpoena was an attempt to restrict free exercise of religion or freedom of speech.
ER no. Violating both. Its the double whammy.
He tweet admitted it. Can't see why you, a lawyer would defend such a practice in any form. She's certainly run from it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.
I agree with your agreement. Agreements for everyone! Automatically Appended Next Post: Sienisoturi wrote: Ouze wrote:I agree with the idea that churches should not be tax exempt, nor should the government restrict any lawful speech they might engage in.
As I'm not so good with the american law, does anybody know, that are non-religious organisations tax exempt?
Charities, certainly "public interest" (aka evilz 501s), some other things. Are unions?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Can't see why you, a lawyer would defend such a practice in any form.
There is no legal privilege protecting the documents in question. There is no First Amendment bar on subpoenaing sermons. The only legal question is whether the subpoena is overbroad. The reason the mayor might be "running from this" (if that is what she is doing) is because it is politically damaging. That's an optical issue, not a legal one.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:Charities, certainly "public interest" (aka evilz 501s), some other things. Are unions?
Google tells me labor unions are 501(c)5, so yeah.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Don't forget about the NFL, although I find the outrage and he statements about why people are outraged pretty uninformed.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Why is the NFL tax-free anyway?
37231
Post by: d-usa
The "NFL" (the tax free part) is actually a very small and minor part of what we think of as the NFL. It's basically the body that is the liason between teams, owners, referees, sponsors, players, etc. It's tax free because it's basically a non-profit liaison between all groups that doesn't make any money because almost all of it is passed through to other groups. All TV money goes to the NFL, who then sends it to the teams (who pay taxes), the players all pay taxes, the referees all pay taxes, stadiums pay taxes, ticket sales are taxed. The only part the "NFL" keeps is whatever money it costs to have their corporate offices (which are tax free) and to pay their staff (who all pay income taxes).
So it's really a silly statement IMO.
121
Post by: Relapse
Poly Ranger wrote:Slightly off topic, but:
I always struggle to comprehend how an entire nation as large as the USA holds on so rigidly to a constitution written by men from 227 years ago who had absolutely no idea what the present day would hold, had no idea about many of the scientific, technological and social advances, and would have had no idea as to the mainstream liberal ideas of todays society. How on earth can people just use the words 'first amendment' to immediately stop any debate even if there is a lot of logic to the opposing sides views... It was written almost 100 years before the worlds first public electricity supply for petes sake.
In Britain we don't hold onto the Magna Carta as though it's word is final and cannot be changed to reflect the changing times.
Each to their own. It's just something I will never comprehend.
They knew there was always going to be some power grabber like the Houston mayor. Thats why we have it and hold to it.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Co'tor Shas wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously suggesting that that is equivalent to being transgender?
Nope... The article outlined how the "victim" is the one who must show "proof" of their claimed gender identity.
I was merely making a (bad) joke about it, and kilts
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'd imagine outside of the Vegas mob, no one can lobby politicians like the NFL.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:
I'd imagine outside of the Vegas mob, no one can lobby politicians like the NFL.
Isn't it the officiating part that is tax free while the teams are still liable for all appropriate taxes?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Ahtman wrote: Frazzled wrote:
I'd imagine outside of the Vegas mob, no one can lobby politicians like the NFL.
Isn't it the officiating part that is tax free while the teams are still liable for all appropriate taxes?
I believe so... the League itself, alonside the PGA, NBA, and IIRC, MLB are all registered as Non-Profit organizations. However, I do believe that individual team owners are responsible for their own taxes (unless they are also, somehow considered non-profits). I would imagine that the revenue sharing that most leagues have now allow some teams to pay "less" than they otherwise would, while some teams might pay more than they otherwise would.
|
|
