TOTALLY GEEKED!

VoiceOfReason wrote:

---

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

---

 Pretty much sums up your attitude towards the religious.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

VoiceOfReason wrote:

---

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

---

 Pretty much sums up your attitude towards the religious.

---

LL,

I❤️U!

chillepeppa wrote:

---

This case, as far as the article has it, is not about the religiosity of the church, or their stance on the LGBT issues, but how a petition submitted, then rejected, was handled. If I missed anything in the article that points to restricting religious freedom, I do apologize. Had this petition been submitted by any other organization, I do not believe it would have been handled any different.

---

 We will have to disagree on that one.  It's a petition.  The only thing necessary is determining if the signatures are authentic.

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

This case, as far as the article has it, is not about the religiosity of the church, or their stance on the LGBT issues, but how a petition submitted, then rejected, was handled. If I missed anything in the article that points to restricting religious freedom, I do apologize. Had this petition been submitted by any other organization, I do not believe it would have been handled any different.

---

 We will have to disagree on that one.  It's a petition.  The only thing necessary is determining if the signatures are authentic.

---

According to the article, that is what they did, and found that some of the signature were not submitted by residents of Houston, thus disqualifying them as per the city charter requirements.  

---

 Then that is a separate issue - it still has nothing to do with the sermons.  If the petition is disqualified for legal reasons - so be it, you challenge the residency and the signature count.  You don't demand sermons, especially from people who are NOT a party to the lawsuit. 

If it's about residency of the signatories - what does the pastor's sermon notes on homosexuality have to do with anything?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

This case, as far as the article has it, is not about the religiosity of the church, or their stance on the LGBT issues, but how a petition submitted, then rejected, was handled. If I missed anything in the article that points to restricting religious freedom, I do apologize. Had this petition been submitted by any other organization, I do not believe it would have been handled any different.

---

 We will have to disagree on that one.  It's a petition.  The only thing necessary is determining if the signatures are authentic.

---

According to the article, that is what they did, and found that some of the signature were not submitted by residents of Houston, thus disqualifying them as per the city charter requirements.  

---

 Then that is a separate issue - it still has nothing to do with the sermons.  If the petition is disqualified for legal reasons - so be it, you challenge the residency and the signature count.  You don't demand sermons, especially from people who are NOT a party to the lawsuit. 

If it's about residency of the signatories - what does the pastor's sermon notes on homosexuality have to do with anything?

---

I can only conclude that they want to be sure that the procedures in question was not discussed in pre or post service announcements. 

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

This case, as far as the article has it, is not about the religiosity of the church, or their stance on the LGBT issues, but how a petition submitted, then rejected, was handled. If I missed anything in the article that points to restricting religious freedom, I do apologize. Had this petition been submitted by any other organization, I do not believe it would have been handled any different.

---

 We will have to disagree on that one.  It's a petition.  The only thing necessary is determining if the signatures are authentic.

---

According to the article, that is what they did, and found that some of the signature were not submitted by residents of Houston, thus disqualifying them as per the city charter requirements.  

---

 Then that is a separate issue - it still has nothing to do with the sermons.  If the petition is disqualified for legal reasons - so be it, you challenge the residency and the signature count.  You don't demand sermons, especially from people who are NOT a party to the lawsuit. 

If it's about residency of the signatories - what does the pastor's sermon notes on homosexuality have to do with anything?

---

I can only conclude that they want to be sure that the procedures in question was not discussed in pre or post service announcements. 

---

"The subpoenas, however, are tied to the January district court date and request more than just sermons. The requests touch on a wide range of communications among the pastors, with their congregations and with city officials about the ordinance, including "any discussion about whether or how HERO does or does not impact restroom access."

They are targeting them for having discussions about the new ordinance.  That violates free speech and the freedom to fight laws.  Church congregations have the same right as ANYONE to discuss ANYTHING.  The only political thing a church cannot do is endorse specific candidates.  And even if they do that - it's not illegal, they just lose their tax exempt status.

Here's the issue I don't think many of you are understanding.

IF the churches acted too politically, influenced people to sign, etc. - that's an issue for the IRS. It has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

If enough of the signatures are invalid because of residency - then the petition is invalid for legal reasons.

The churches are not a party to the lawsuit, so what discussions they had among themselves is not relevant.

Either the petition is valid or it isn't.  Going out of their way to examine church documents, conversations, etc. which have no bearing is exactly what makes it a witch hunt. 

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”


ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”


“Political and social commentary is not a crime,” Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.”

The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.

The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.

After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF attorney Erik Stanley. “This is designed to intimidate pastors.”

Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.

“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.

However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.

Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.

The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law.

“This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”

More - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons/

They had 50,000 signatures and only needed 17,269.  The Mayor refuses to say WHY they need the sermons.   

Seems your story and the initial story do not agree on the facts...

"City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to qualify the opponents' petition, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Feldman then looked through all of the petition pages to see if those who gathered signatures met city charter requirements - namely, whether signature gatherers were Houston residents and whether they signed the petition pages.

That process disqualified more than half the 5,199 pages. In their suit, opponents claimed Russell's original count should be the most important one and alleged Feldman had inserted himself into the process illegally."

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Seems your story and the initial story do not agree on the facts...

"City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to qualify the opponents' petition, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Feldman then looked through all of the petition pages to see if those who gathered signatures met city charter requirements - namely, whether signature gatherers were Houston residents and whether they signed the petition pages.

That process disqualified more than half the 5,199 pages. In their suit, opponents claimed Russell's original count should be the most important one and alleged Feldman had inserted himself into the process illegally."

---

What i understand Russell stopped counting once the requirement was met.  Feldman went through afterward.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Here are more numbers -



The coalition had submitted more than 55,000 signatures in the referendum drive. City Secretary Anna Russell confirmed in writing Aug. 1 that the petition sponsors had submitted 17,846 qualified signatures, nearly 600 above the minimum 17,269.

However, City Attorney David Feldman announced 2,750 petitions were invalid because of “technical problems.”

Opponents have argued Feldman did not have the authority to step in and make the decision and that it should have been handled by the courts.

Read more at www.wnd.com/2014/10/major-u-s-city-demands-oversight-of-sermons/






The city is acting shady. They are trying to avoid putting this law to a vote - you know - the whole democratic process. Over 50,000 votes and they disqualified enough of them to get below 17,269? They are trying to deflect the real corruption here.

---

Wouldn't all of this be addressed in Jan when they get their day in court?

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Here are more numbers -



The coalition had submitted more than 55,000 signatures in the referendum drive. City Secretary Anna Russell confirmed in writing Aug. 1 that the petition sponsors had submitted 17,846 qualified signatures, nearly 600 above the minimum 17,269.

However, City Attorney David Feldman announced 2,750 petitions were invalid because of “technical problems.”

Opponents have argued Feldman did not have the authority to step in and make the decision and that it should have been handled by the courts.

Read more at www.wnd.com/2014/10/major-u-s-city-demands-oversight-of-sermons/






The city is acting shady. They are trying to avoid putting this law to a vote - you know - the whole democratic process. Over 50,000 votes and they disqualified enough of them to get below 17,269? They are trying to deflect the real corruption here.

---

Wouldn't all of this be addressed in Jan when they get their day in court?

---

 You are missing the point.  The pastors shouldn't have to go to court over their sermons.  That, in and of itself, is a violation.  It is the city attempting to villianize pastors while disallowing the public to have a say in the law.  They are deflecting attention onto the pastors and singling them out. 

Day in court?  The pastors are not part of the lawsuit.  They should not be involved at all.  They could potentially be in contempt if they refuse to comply with the subpoena.  That means a pastor could be put in jail for not handing over his sermons to government officials.  That is SUCH a violation of the first amendment it is astounding.

---

But there must be some way that this gets resolved one way or another. Us discussing it on the internet means nothing. It does not get them of the hook, as unconstitutional it may seem. Claiming that all liberals are the same does not help either. If it is unconstitutional, then someone must be able to step in to set things right? 

New stuff - http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/16/houston-mayor-city-attorney-on-second-thought-maybe-those-subpoenas-were-a-wee-bit-broad/


Quelle surprise. After news of their subpoenas for sermons given by religious leaders went viral yesterday, Houston’s mayor and city attorney backpedaled away from its “wording,” although the city attorney initially attempted to defend the demand. Later, he shifted the blame to outside legal representation:


Amid outrage from religious groups, Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman on Wednesday appeared to back off a subpoena request for the sermons of certain ministers opposed to the city’s equal rights ordinance, with Parker calling it overly broad.

The subpoenas, handed down to five pastors and religious leaders last month, came to light this week when attorneys for the group of pastors filed a motion to quash the request. Though Feldman stood behind the subpoena in an interview Tuesday, he and Parker said during the Mayor’s weekly press conference Wednesday that the wording was problematic.

The wording was the issue? Not the fact that the subpoena demanded sermons that had nothing directly to do with the petition process, such as their thoughts on “gender identity” and homosexuality? That’s their new line, and they’re sticking to it:


Feldman is monitoring the case, he said, but had not seen the subpoena written by outside counsel working pro-bono for the city until this week. Parker said she also did not know about the request until this week.

“There’s no question the wording was overly broad,” she said. “But I also think there was some misinterpretation on the other side.”

Parker wants to remind everyone of who the victim in this episode really is:


“Let me just say that one word in a very long legal document which I know nothing about and would never have read and I’m vilified coast to coast,” Parker said.

Let's not forget that the subpoena requested anything said about Parker - but she knew nothing about it. 

chillepeppa wrote:

---

Does the city's back pedaling have legal implications?

---

Legally - it could possibly b/c they violated their constitutional rights just in demanding to see the sermons.   But, hopefully not.  If they drop the matter and apologize, the churches should let it go.  Forgive thy neighbor and all that.

However, I think this is going to bring to light some other issues for the city.  Like the basis for disqualifying thousands of signatures for "technical" reasons and the legality of how they did it.  And why they are so against putting a controversial issue to a vote.  The mayor doesn't look good on this one. 

The underlying law that is being fought is the bathroom law, allowing anyone to use a bathroom for the gender they identify with.  It has been in place several years and was originally intended to allow school children to use the opposite gender bathroom if that is what they identified with.  However, as feared, it is being used by sexual predators to enter the opposite sex bathroom.  One man dressed in drag and went into the girl's locker room and watched two tweens shower.   Just like any knee-jerk, feel good legislation, the unintended consequences outweigh the intent.  The community wants the law repealed.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

They call u a bigot and then act like u are insulting them! Lol

---

 So "bigot" is a compliment now?

flan

just Czech wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

They call u a bigot and then act like u are insulting them! Lol

---

 So "bigot" is a compliment now?

flan

---

It can be. Language is fluid, changing all the time.

And, IMHO, the word is so overused that it has become meaningless. 

---

 Well, there's also the fact that nobody agrees with everything. 

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

"If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it's political speech, then it's not going to be protected," Feldman said.

This.

flan

---

WTF  are you talking about?????

 

Political speech is the VERY TYPE of speech the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution!!

 

They wanted people to be able to speak out against the government if they felt they needed to.

 

Political speech should be (and usually is) the MOST protected type of speech.  Read the frickin' Constitution once in while.  

---

 But NOT in a sermon in a Church.

And you can yell at me all you want...

flan

---

???  Bullsh!t!!!!   ESPECIALLY there. It is protected two ways there--BOTH as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I will yell at you.  Why are you so against fundamental freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

I hope they keep this in the courts.  The Supreme Court would throw this out in a heartbeat.  We need to keep this gross overreach of power in the forefront of the news.