Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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.

 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.

It would seem Article 1, sections 6 and 8 of the Texas constitution should cover this.

So,

is this bathroom bill basically the "cissy" episode from south park?

Anyone have a good rund down of what it actually does?

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

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

 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" ??

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.

 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.

 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?

... And if we allow gay marriages, people will marry turtles - at some point you gotta just shrug and ignore it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Of course sermons are discoverable. This is not a First Amendment issue at all.

Thats not the issue.

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?

 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.

It's not illegal now, is what I am saying. It's not a protected class.

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.

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.

I know I wouldn't want my daughters going into a restroom where some guy might be lurking.

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.

And some guy could go in there anyway.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:
the city defending not allowing signatures on the petition

On what basis is the city not allowing signatures on the petition?

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.

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?

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.

 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"?

 AlmightyWalrus 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.

So, in other words, ban men?

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.

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?

 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!

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.