TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

RE: And so Religious freedom is no longer...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Of course not. But it is many isolated incidents and then case law which gets developed. What, me worry?

Ohfour · Hooker

chillepeppa wrote:
Call it what you want, I still don't see how this isolated incident have impeded your right to practice your religion.

Do you not see how it impedes a pastors right to practice their religion? Or is that too hard to understand too?

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 15th of October 2014 02:42:04 PM

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
The pulpit can be abused.

flan

Soooo, if you don't like what the Pastor is saying, I think you can get up and leave.

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
The pulpit can be abused.

flan

So we make free speech against the law????? That's how you want this handled?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Call it what you want, I still don't see how this isolated incident have impeded your right to practice your religion.
Do you not see how it impedes a pastors right to practice their religion? Or is that to hard to understand too?

And what if a pastor decides to take it one step further & advocate violence against homosexuals?

flan

chillepeppa · Regular

These pastors, maybe, but not pastors. Was your pastor involved?

These things happen. This is how boundaries as confirmed, enforced. Loopholes discovered. I still don't see the big deal.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The pulpit can be abused.

flan
So we make free speech against the law????? That's how you want this handled?

That's exactly what they want O4. Politically correct speech ONLY. WHo are the REAL censors?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The pulpit can be abused.

flan
So we make free speech against the law????? That's how you want this handled?
That's exactly what they want O4. Politically correct speech ONLY. WHo are the REAL censors?

Ooooh, the infamous "they..."

flan

chillepeppa · Regular

Free speech is great, but it does not come without consequences. If the city finds the sermons are acceptable, that will be the end of it.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I don't know . Jon Stewart and all the liberal shills are always shouting about the infamous "They".

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Free speech is great, but it does not come without consequences. If the city finds the sermons are acceptable, that will be the end of it.

The city should not be reviewing or deciding what is an "acceptable" sermon. That is a HUGE restriction on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

At the MOST, if the speech was truly political, then they could go after their tax exempt status. They CANNOT tell them what they can preach. The city will lose.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I don't know . Jon Stewart and all the liberal shills are always shouting about the infamous "They".

Dude...Jon Stewart is on my "Freebie Five" list.

evileye

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Good heavens, the world some of you people want to live in. It's scary.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that is offensive. Otherwise, if nobody was ever offended, then we wouldn't need free speech laws!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Free speech is great, but it does not come without consequences. If the city finds the sermons are acceptable, that will be the end of it.
The city should not be reviewing or deciding what is an "acceptable" sermon. That is a HUGE restriction on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

At the MOST, if the speech was truly political, then they could go after their tax exempt status. They CANNOT tell them what they can preach. The city will lose.

Then...problem solved! Magic!!

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
Good heavens, the world some of you people want to live in. It's scary.

The same goes for me...

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Free speech is great, but it does not come without consequences. If the city finds the sermons are acceptable, that will be the end of it.
The city should not be reviewing or deciding what is an "acceptable" sermon. That is a HUGE restriction on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

At the MOST, if the speech was truly political, then they could go after their tax exempt status. They CANNOT tell them what they can preach. The city will lose.
Then...problem solved! Magic!!
flan

So, does the church get to sue and win $2 Million because of having their religious freedom curtailed?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that is offensive. Otherwise, if nobody was ever offended, then we wouldn't need free speech laws!

I would say "dangerous."

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that is offensive. Otherwise, if nobody was ever offended, then we wouldn't need free speech laws!
I would say "dangerous."
flan

How? How is it dangerous? That's hyperbole at it's finest.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that is offensive. Otherwise, if nobody was ever offended, then we wouldn't need free speech laws!
I would say "dangerous."
flan

Free speech is free speech. It either is or it isn't.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that is offensive. Otherwise, if nobody was ever offended, then we wouldn't need free speech laws!
I would say "dangerous."
flan
How? How is it dangerous? That's hyperbole at it's finest.

I was speaking in generalities.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

chillepeppa wrote:
Call it what you want, I still don't see how this isolated incident have impeded your right to practice your religion.

This isolated incident should not have happened in the first place. It should have been grounds of removal of that mayor. It is against the freedom of religion and there fore she is not upholding the law.

And this isolated incident is setting a precedent for future censorship.

I mean if they get away with it in this one place at this one time then why not in that one place and that one time. And then the next one place and one time and the next place and time and the next place and time. Until it is every place and every time.

This is how rights are eroded. One time and one place at a time.

-- Edited by lilyofcourse on Wednesday 15th of October 2014 03:32:04 PM

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Many people in the religious community are against gay marriages and believe homosexuality is a sin. It is their right to believe that and their right to proclaim it from the pulpit.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Call it what you want, I still don't see how this isolated incident have impeded your right to practice your religion.

This "isolated" incident affects the people in those churches. Or don't they matter? What about the preachers - their rights don't matter?

Just because you don't like what someone is saying doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The Supreme Court has been pretty clear about freedom of religion - I don't understand why these idiot politicians don't understand it.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

chillepeppa wrote:
Free speech is great, but it does not come without consequences. If the city finds the sermons are acceptable, that will be the end of it.

It should never be up to the government to find a sermon acceptable. That is the very basics of freedom of religion.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Free speech is great, but it does not come without consequences. If the city finds the sermons are acceptable, that will be the end of it.
The city should not be reviewing or deciding what is an "acceptable" sermon. That is a HUGE restriction on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

At the MOST, if the speech was truly political, then they could go after their tax exempt status. They CANNOT tell them what they can preach. The city will lose.

I'm just awestruck that people do not understand this. No one is advocating violence. That would be against the law. Preaching about sin is not...or at least shouldn't be...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Call it what you want, I still don't see how this isolated incident have impeded your right to practice your religion.
This "isolated" incident affects the people in those churches. Or don't they matter? What about the preachers - their rights don't matter?

Just because you don't like what someone is saying doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.

And that's what a judge will decide.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Call it what you want, I still don't see how this isolated incident have impeded your right to practice your religion.
This "isolated" incident affects the people in those churches. Or don't they matter? What about the preachers - their rights don't matter?

Just because you don't like what someone is saying doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.
And that's what a judge will decide.
flan

Why should a judge HAVE to decided something that is the very core of our Constitution? Because you don't like it? Well you (general you) can go fvck yourself. This makes me want to speak out even more. It will have the reverse effect...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Of which the courts have been stacked with liberal leaning, non Constitution believing political appointments of biased Judges.

chillepeppa · Regular

I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

So lets turn this around.

What if the speeches of the pro gay agenda rally had to be approved by the church?

You like that whole separation of church and state until it suits your wants.

Don't you pray in my public school but let me tell you what you can say in your church.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?

If you truly can not see how this erodes freedom of religion then no amount of explanation will make it any more clear.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Sorry. The State is not going to tell Pastors what they may or may not say from the Pulpit. That ain't happening.

Ohfour · Hooker

chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?

I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?

The government is not allowed to interfere with religious freedom.

If a natural consequence is that the church loses members, or the community speaks out against it, so be it - but a government entity can't curtail religious speech - or any speech for that matter.

The First Amendment, folks -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This basically abridges the free exercise thereof, freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble (in church).

Hey, look at that - it also protects the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So, if they want to sign petitions against laws, that's protected, too.

What argument can you POSSIBLY make that their actions do not violate the first amendment, other than you just don't like what they are saying?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

They don't want the Church to interfere with the State supposedly but have no qualms whatsoever about the State interfering with the Church!

chillepeppa · Regular

Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?
I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?

Not sure how sermons, already preached needs approval? What does it mean when a case is in discovery phase? Purely fact collecting that might or might not be relevant to the case eventually?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?
I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?
Not sure how sermons, already preached needs approval? What does it mean when a case is in discovery phase? Purely fact collecting that might or might not be relevant to the case eventually?

What case?

chillepeppa · Regular

Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?
I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?
Not sure how sermons, already preached needs approval? What does it mean when a case is in discovery phase? Purely fact collecting that might or might not be relevant to the case eventually?
What case?

City attorneys issued subpoenas last month as part of the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

^^That case...

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Here's the deal... I have no problems with gay people having rallies, parades, signing petitions, or lobbying for gay marriage. But I also have no problem with the other side doing the same. If you want equality you have to have equality for ALL and not just one side. I remember on the other board someone posted that it was okay for gays to rally, have parades, sign petition, and lobby but it was wrong for the other side to do the same because they were somehow squashing the gay rights. I also remember husker going off on that one. I guess I just don't understand why it's such a threat for the one side to have the other side speak out. Nor do I understand why we can't have both sides speaking out equally.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?
I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?
Not sure how sermons, already preached needs approval? What does it mean when a case is in discovery phase? Purely fact collecting that might or might not be relevant to the case eventually?
What case?
City attorneys issued subpoenas last month as part of the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

^^That case...

The one the pastors are NOT a party to? How is it relevant?

This is a case where people are objecting to a law that allows transgenders to use any public restroom they choose, and people are upset about the potential problems that could cause.

So, how on EARTH are pastor's sermons, who are not even parties to the lawsuit, relevant in any way at all?

chillepeppa · Regular

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Here's the deal... I have no problems with gay people having rallies, parades, signing petitions, or lobbying for gay marriage. But I also have no problem with the other side doing the same. If you want equality you have to have equality for ALL and not just one side. I remember on the other board someone posted that it was okay for gays to rally, have parades, sign petition, and lobby but it was wrong for the other side to do the same because they were somehow squashing the gay rights. I also remember husker going off on that one. I guess I just don't understand why it's such a threat for the one side to have the other side speak out. Nor do I understand why we can't have both sides speaking out equally.

Well said NJN...

chillepeppa · Regular

Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?
I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?
Not sure how sermons, already preached needs approval? What does it mean when a case is in discovery phase? Purely fact collecting that might or might not be relevant to the case eventually?
What case?
City attorneys issued subpoenas last month as part of the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

^^That case...
The one the pastors are NOT a party to? How is it relevant?
This is a case where people are objecting to a law that allows transgenders to use any public restroom they choose, and people are upset about the potential problems that could cause.
So, how on EARTH are pastor's sermons, who are not even parties to the lawsuit, relevant in any way at all?

I don't know, isn't that what they pay the lawyers for? Again, not really seeing the big deal if all it takes is for a their lawyer to go, no deal, and it's all over...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Here's the deal... I have no problems with gay people having rallies, parades, signing petitions, or lobbying for gay marriage. But I also have no problem with the other side doing the same. If you want equality you have to have equality for ALL and not just one side. I remember on the other board someone posted that it was okay for gays to rally, have parades, sign petition, and lobby but it was wrong for the other side to do the same because they were somehow squashing the gay rights. I also remember husker going off on that one. I guess I just don't understand why it's such a threat for the one side to have the other side speak out. Nor do I understand why we can't have both sides speaking out equally.
Well said NJN...

If you agree, then I don't understand your arguments on here.

chillepeppa · Regular

My argument was mainly about how one incident, not yet fully concluded, has the sky falling...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
chillepeppa wrote:
I never said they had no right to say anything. Consequences include anything from pats on the back to having is discussed to going to court. Not all consequences are bad. I'm just trying to understand how this incident have escalated to having religious freedom (in general) taken away?
I'll type real slow...

When you tell a pastor that he cannot preach on one of the basic tenets of his church, you have restricted religious freedom. Understand?
Not sure how sermons, already preached needs approval? What does it mean when a case is in discovery phase? Purely fact collecting that might or might not be relevant to the case eventually?
What case?
City attorneys issued subpoenas last month as part of the case's discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."

^^That case...
The one the pastors are NOT a party to? How is it relevant?
This is a case where people are objecting to a law that allows transgenders to use any public restroom they choose, and people are upset about the potential problems that could cause.
So, how on EARTH are pastor's sermons, who are not even parties to the lawsuit, relevant in any way at all?
I don't know, isn't that what they pay the lawyers for? Again, not really seeing the big deal if all it takes is for a their lawyer to go, no deal, and it's all over...

Well, lawsuits cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. And it is the city ignoring religious freedom because they don't like that LOTS of people don't like their law. They are purposefully singling out churches to push around to get their way. That's a big deal.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

chillepeppa wrote:
My argument was mainly about how one incident, not yet fully concluded, has the sky falling...

I answered that.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chillepeppa wrote:
My argument was mainly about how one incident, not yet fully concluded, has the sky falling...

Because American law is all about precedent. Once it starts, it can get very ugly.