Houston mayor tries to subpoena church sermons

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.

**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.

**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:

**Frazzled**

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

**Relapse**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

I don't think he's overlapping them. He's saying criminals could use this law to their advantage.

**Ouze**

Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?

**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.

**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.

**Ouze**

Yes, that's a classic appeal to emotion.

**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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Well, we should ban guns, because criminals might use them. Right?

We should ban oxygen. Criminals definitely use oxygen.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Manchu**

cincydooley wrote:
That's just a weird argument to me.

That was the point.

**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.

**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.

**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'.

**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

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
The intent however is very much anti-First Amendment.

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.

**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!

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The intent however is very much anti-First Amendment.
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.