City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

[Brett85]

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


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.”

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!

“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.”

David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.

“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”

He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.

“We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers.

“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”

Perkins called the actions by Houston’s mayor “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated.”

“This is a shot across the bow of the church,” he said.

This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.

Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.

Tony Perkins is absolutely right. Now is the time for pastors and people of faith to take a stand. We must rise up and reject this despicable strong-arm attack on religious liberty. We cannot allow ministers to be intimidated by government thugs.

The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”

Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

Pastor Welch compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution.

“This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family,” Welch told me. “This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”

We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together - because one day – the government might come for your pastor.

[Influenza]

Is this real life?

[Brett85]

Is this real life?

It's just the beginning of what you'll see in the new "tolerant America."

[Carlybee]

Yes it's real. Our mayor who never flaunted her lesbianism when she was city controller, is now trying to shove her agenda down everyone's throat for her future political aspirations. She has done a couple of good things..one is opening a dialog about decriminalizing weed and another is not jailing first time PI cases but she most definitely wants to use her office as a bully pulpit for other issues.

[tod evans]

Are these the same pastors who call for police to arrest people for smoking plants?

Hopefully they'll realize that the hammer of the "Just-Us" department can be used to whack them just as readily as it can be used to whack others...

I don't support government doing this to the pastors any more than I support them doing it to others.....

[Brett85]

Yes it's real. Our mayor who never flaunted her lesbianism when she was city controller, is now trying to shove her agenda down everyone's throat for her future political aspirations. She has done a couple of good things..one is opening a dialog about decriminalizing weed and another is not jailing first time PI cases but she most definitely wants to use her office as a bully pulpit for other issues.

Lol, so she wants to allow people to smoke marijuana but believes that Christians should be thrown in prison. I'm pretty sure that's not a net positive overall.

[Brett85]

Are these the same pastors who call for police to arrest people for smoking plants?

Hopefully they'll realize that the hammer of the "Just-Us" department can be used to whack them just as readily as it can be used to whack others...

I don't support government doing this to the pastors any more than I support them doing it to others.....

I'm not in favor of marijuana prohibition, but I still don't really think there's any comparison between that and throwing people in prison simply for practicing their faith. Still, your point about how pastors should be more consistent defenders of liberty is valid.

[A. Havnes]

Anti-discrimination? These pastors are voicing their opposition to homosexuality and the like, not barring them from attending. That's not discrimination by any definition. If I were to say that I abhor smoking does that mean that I'm discriminating against smokers? No. In their own churches they are allowed to say whatever they want; they aren't exactly carrying out hate crimes and should not be punished as though they are.

This reeks of Thought Police.

[mosquitobite]

This is why churches should not take tax-exempt status - so when the gubmint comes knocking they can tell them to piss off!

[Brett85]

This is why churches should not take tax-exempt status - so when the gubmint comes knocking they can tell them to piss off!

I don't think it would matter. These pastors are being harassed because they supposedly violated an anti discrimination statute. Even if they didn't take the tax exempt status, they would just be forced to pay a fine or face prison time for speaking out against homosexuality.

[Carlybee]

I don't think it would matter. These pastors are being harassed because they supposedly violated an anti discrimination statute. Even if they didn't take the tax exempt status, they would just be forced to pay a fine or face prison time for speaking out against homosexuality.


It hasn't gone into effect yet because of the lawsuit. This is just the mayor getting retribution. One of the main reasons for the opposition is the unisex bathrooms.

[specsaregood]

I would think they would gladly hand over a copy of their sermon, heck they should publish it on their website?

I understand the problem with them being "required" to hand it over; but why wouldn't they be happy to willingly produce it? Heck, if I was one of them I'd take the opportunity to turn it into a media event and reap the rewards of donations.

[Inkblots]

I would think they would gladly hand over a copy of their sermon, heck they should publish it on their website?

I understand the problem with them being "required" to hand it over; but why wouldn't they be happy to willingly produce it? Heck, if I was one of them I'd take the opportunity to turn it into a media event and reap the rewards of donations.

Because the entire point is for the mayor's political operation to trawl through the sermons for quotes that sound bad or can be taken out of context to demagogue opponents to their "equality" ordinance. Giving them what they want would be a PR disaster -- you really expect the big media outlets to publish full uncut sermons and not a few choice excerpts pointed out by the mayor's office?

[William Tell]

Lesbian witch runs a town in my State, depressing.:mad:

[William Tell]

This is what Congressman John G. Schmitz would have referred to as an "Attack of the Bulldykes"

[LibForestPaul]

Lol, so she wants to allow people to smoke marijuana but believes that Christians should be thrown in prison. I'm pretty sure that's not a net positive overall.

For the uppity Christians I know. Net positive, definitely.

[jbauer]

So wtf happened to separation of church and state? Can't chisel out in god we trust from the court house wall but then ask for their sermons. Tell em to go fk off. Throw a pastor in jail and watch your political career pull a Toronto type trajectory.

However, our pastor posts text and a mp3 on the web. Text prior to and audio after.

[presence]

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/2012/05/82564589/wtf.jpg

[phill4paul]

Give up your 501(c)(3.) and tell the Fed Gov to go f*ck themselves. Then, when they come unto you for taxes tell them to go f*ck themselves once more. If every church and every member did this Leviathan would crumble.
If every church asked their members to reject Leviathan the federal government would crumble tomorrow.
But, petty tyrants must pay a price to be a petty tyrant.

[pcosmar]

What if they don't have a written sermon? (Many preachers don't)

[Christian Liberty]

Give up your 501(c)(3.) and tell the Fed Gov to go f*ck themselves. Then, when they come unto you for taxes tell them to go f*ck themselves once more. If every church and every member did this Leviathan would crumble.
If every church asked their members to reject Leviathan the federal government would crumble tomorrow.
But, petty tyrants must pay a price to be a petty tyrant.

The only possible way to do this is to give them an alternative (ie. one they can believe in) interpretation to "Render unto Caesar'... I'm still not 100% sure how to take that passage honestly. But most Christians are still convinced that it is telling them to pay taxes. And unfortunately, as long as they believe that, there is no hope of convincing them to do otherwise.

[V4Vendetta]

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

he 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.”

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!

“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.”

David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.

“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”

He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.

“We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers.

“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”

Perkins called the actions by Houston’s mayor “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated.”

“This is a shot across the bow of the church,” he said.

This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.

Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.

Tony Perkins is absolutely right. Now is the time for pastors and people of faith to take a stand. We must rise up and reject this despicable strong-arm attack on religious liberty. We cannot allow ministers to be intimidated by government thugs.

The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”

Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

Pastor Welch compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution.

“This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family,” Welch told me. “This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”

We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together - because one day – the government might come for your pastor.

[phill4paul]

The only possible way to do this is to give them an alternative (ie. one they can believe in) interpretation to "Render unto Caesar'... I'm still not 100% sure how to take that passage honestly. But most Christians are still convinced that it is telling them to pay taxes. And unfortunately, as long as they believe that, there is no hope of convincing them to do otherwise.

If the fed.gov is telling you what you may or may not preach then rendering unto Caesar becomes something totally different from even the inferred passage. Does changing the scripture to suit the Caesar mean "rendering unto Caesar?" I think not.

[V4Vendetta]

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9a/28/c0/9a28c05c842d0cdfa2cb2c8ed74c195d.jpg

[V4Vendetta]

I've read the article several times now... it reads like a article in a book about Nazis taking over Germany.... I can't believe this is actually real... i mean... really????

[Anti Federalist]

The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”

Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

As much as I'd like to take a minute to enjoy some Romans 13 schadenfreude, I cannot and nobody else should either, this is a very serious reach by the police state, regardless of whether you like Christians or not.

[Anti Federalist]

The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”

Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

As much as I'd like to take a minute to enjoy some Romans 13 schadenfreude, I cannot and nobody else should either, this is a very serious reach by the police state, regardless of whether you like Christians or not.

[Anti Federalist]

Also demonstrates, again, that the ***** lobby has no real interest in liberty, freedom or "live and let live".

[tod evans]

Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

I disagree with this whole idea!

Once government imprisons you it's too late.

Fight the bastards off by any means necessary.....

[specsaregood]

Because the entire point is for the mayor's political operation to trawl through the sermons for quotes that sound bad or can be taken out of context to demagogue opponents to their "equality" ordinance. Giving them what they want would be a PR disaster -- you really expect the big media outlets to publish full uncut sermons and not a few choice excerpts pointed out by the mayor's office?

I get that. and I get why being told to hand them over is a bad thing. I just question whether refusing is the right way to go at it. I'd be more impressed if these pastors wrote sermons talking about why such govt power is a bad thing; or even homosexuality. Instead of acting like they have something to hide, publish their sermons and target them specifically for this abuse of power.

[Spikender]

She can't honestly be stupid enough to not see the hypocrisy of being okay with people smoking a plant but then simultaneously believing that jailing pastors for not sharing their sermons is okay.

Then again... human stupidity surprises me on a daily basis so I might as well sit back and roll my eyes as usual.

[William Tell]

The only possible way to do this is to give them an alternative (ie. one they can believe in) interpretation to "Render unto Caesar'... I'm still not 100% sure how to take that passage honestly. But most Christians are still convinced that it is telling them to pay taxes. And unfortunately, as long as they believe that, there is no hope of convincing them to do otherwise.

Why do you say that? 501c3 is a Tax Exempt status, it's voluntary. Sure, maybe you need to change their minds to have them stand up, but not filing 501c3 should not be that hard for them. The feds did put Kent Hovind in prison over a the way he did payroll in his ministry though.

[William Tell]

If the fed.gov is telling you what you may or may not preach then rendering unto Caesar becomes something totally different from even the inferred passage. Does changing the scripture to suit the Caesar mean "rendering unto Caesar?" I think not.

You are correct, historically Christians view preaching under persecution as a duty. Romans 13 is null and void even from a pro government perspective, because Paul who wrote that did not care if he went to prison. Let alone Jesus Christ, the one who really matters.

[William Tell]

She can't honestly be stupid enough to not see the hypocrisy of being okay with people smoking a plant but then simultaneously believing that jailing pastors for not sharing their sermons is okay.

Then again... human stupidity surprises me on a daily basis so I might as well sit back and roll my eyes as usual.
It's not stupidity, I saw multiple commenters on a libertarian site, saying that it's a good thing that Kent Hovind was put in prison by the IRS. Because they think preaching creationism is a threat to liberty and free thinking. These are people who don't even think the IRS should exist.

Some people who know better want an Atheistocracy.

[RPfan1992]

It's not stupidity, I saw multiple commenters on a libertarian site, saying that it's a good thing that Kent Hovind was put in prison by the IRS. Because they think preaching creationism is a threat to liberty and free thinking. These are people who don't even think the IRS should exist.

Some people who know better want an Atheistocracy.

A lot of people overuse the word libertarian nowadays. No wonder there are so many fake libertarians.

[jmdrake]

I would think they would gladly hand over a copy of their sermon, heck they should publish it on their website?

I understand the problem with them being "required" to hand it over; but why wouldn't they be happy to willingly produce it? Heck, if I was one of them I'd take the opportunity to turn it into a media event and reap the rewards of donations.

It's a matter of liberty. If they can be "forced" to turn over sermons then that implies that there is something in them that might be relevant in a legal proceeding. That implies that they could be held criminally or civilly liable for something they said.

[pcosmar]

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Charge them with a crime (what crime?) and get a warrant.

Does this "idiot in charge" really want to start that war?

[Brett85]

Duplicate post.

[Brett85]

Ted Cruz has already spoken out against this. I wish Rand would do the same. It just seems like he doesn't want to get in the middle of anything controversial. He just wants to focus on issues that bring people together like NSA surveillance, which is fine, but ultimately you have to choose a side and speak out on these culture war issues. But this would be the perfect opportunity for Rand to point out that a libertarian society would be a friend of Christians and people of faith.

[specsaregood]

Ted Cruz has already spoken out against this. I wish Rand would do the same. It just seems like he doesn't want to get in the middle of anything controversial. He just wants to focus on issues that bring people together like NSA surveillance, which is fine, but ultimately you have to choose a side and speak out on these culture war issues. But this would be the perfect opportunity for Rand to point out that a libertarian society would be a friend of Christians and people of faith.

Just gonna put this here:


Not only did everyone expect Rand Paul to be sympathetic to their specific position, they demanded that he have a position on any event they managed to pick up in the daily news, foreign or domestic. Speaking as an intern who literally spent the day with the news playing constantly in the background, I have no idea how they imagined a Senator could simultaneously vote, draft legislation, give an interview, and at once be totally aware of all the goings-on in the world. At times it was downright infuriating to feel you were working so diligently and sincerely only to be met with skepticism and criticism at every turn.
http://stanfordreview.org/article/in-the-office-of-rand-paul/

[Christian Liberty]

Why do you say that? 501c3 is a Tax Exempt status, it's voluntary. Sure, maybe you need to change their minds to have them stand up, but not filing 501c3 should not be that hard for them. The feds did put Kent Hovind in prison over a the way he did payroll in his ministry though.

I was talking about the telling the government to screw itself when they come for taxes, as P4P suggested doing.

I'm not sure what Hovind did was smart, pragmatically, but I don't think it was inherently sinful. Most Christians disagree with me on that, though.

[Brett85]

Just gonna put this here:

Yeah, he can't respond to every single news event that deals with the loss of religious liberty, but this is a huge deal. It's not every day that the government threatens to punish pastors for following their Christian faith and preaching what the Bible teaches.

[specsaregood]

Yeah, he can't respond to every single news event that deals with the loss of religious liberty, but this is a huge deal. It's not every day that the government threatens to punish pastors for following their Christian faith and preaching what the Bible teaches.

It has been less than 24 hours since I heard about it, how about you? I know I'm not as busy as Randal, are you? Cruz is a Senator from texas with offices and staff in texas, I'm not surprised he heard about it, researched it and had a response for a local event fairly quickly.

[Lucille]

The Annals of Bad Ideas: Houston Responds to Religious Activism with Subpoenas for Sermon Contents
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/15/the-annals-of-bad-ideas-houston-responds


...Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.

But such a broad demand for communications appears a bit absurd. All sermons related to homosexuality from conservative preachers? Much of that could have nothing to do with any sort of activism against the ordinance. And did nobody think about how it was going to look to demand any communications by a religious leader that mentioned the city's openly gay mayor? One legal expert was skeptical:


The city's lawyers will face a high bar for proving the information in the sermons is essential to their case, said Charles Rhodes, a South Texas College of Law professor. The pastors are not named parties in the suit, and the "Church Autonomy Doctrine" offers fairly broad protections for internal church deliberations, he said.

Calling it an "unusual but not unprecedented" subpoena request, Rhodes said the city would stand a better chance of getting the sermons if it were a criminal case in which the message or directive in the sermons prompted a specific criminal action. …

"This is unusual to see it come up in a pure political controversy," Rhodes said. "The city is going to have to prove there is something very particular in the sermons that does not come up anywhere else."

The Alliance Defending Freedom is trying to quash the subpoenas. What strikes me about this foolishness of this decision is that it reinforces the fears of the religious that they will be targeted and victimized in a society that is more tolerant of gays and the transgender. The big argument the opponents of the ordinance have been using is actual fearmongering that sexual predators will dress up like women to get them in the bathrooms and we'll all be helpless to stop them because of the law. It is a silly, stupid argument that has no basis in anything real (though, having said that: Private businesses should be able to set whatever restroom policies they want).

But now that the city and its mayor are actually, literally targeting them using the law as a weapon, they are getting all sorts of attention. It doesn't actually matter whether Feldman is right and these guys pushed beyond proselytizing to political activism that is inappropriate for religious nonprofits. It makes the city look like a bully that doesn't actually have any faith that the ordinance it passed is supported by its own electorate.

I don't think it's a silly, stupid argument.

[JK/SEA]

This is why churches should not take tax-exempt status - so when the gubmint comes knocking they can tell them to piss off!

this.

[FloralScent]

This is why churches should not take tax-exempt status - so when the gubmint comes knocking they can tell them to piss off!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qryEcROhjSU

[Brett85]

It has been less than 24 hours since I heard about it, how about you? I know I'm not as busy as Randal, are you? Cruz is a Senator from texas with offices and staff in texas, I'm not surprised he heard about it, researched it and had a response for a local event fairly quickly.

That's why I said that I hope that he speaks out against it. It would be a good opportunity for him to reach out to social conservatives in Iowa and other states.

[GunnyFreedom]

501(c)3 is not just a bad idea, it's evil. I'm using this over on fedbook to educate people about 501(c)3 and to rally them behind Walter Jones's effort to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

[GunnyFreedom]

Are these the same pastors who call for police to arrest people for smoking plants?

Hopefully they'll realize that the hammer of the "Just-Us" department can be used to whack them just as readily as it can be used to whack others...

I don't support government doing this to the pastors any more than I support them doing it to others.....

They probably wouldn't be so deep in zombieland over prohibition if not for the fact that 501(c)3 makes the government a higher authority than God.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think it would matter. These pastors are being harassed because they supposedly violated an anti discrimination statute. Even if they didn't take the tax exempt status, they would just be forced to pay a fine or face prison time for speaking out against homosexuality.

Not so, they are subpoenaing the content of the sermons. The ONLY tool that permits the regulation of sermon content, is 501(c)3. Without that tax status, there would not be the power to subpoena the sermons.

[GunnyFreedom]

Lol, so she wants to allow people to smoke marijuana but believes that Christians should be thrown in prison. I'm pretty sure that's not a net positive overall.


For the uppity Christians I know. Net positive, definitely.

How very libertarian of you.

[Brett85]

Not so, they are subpoenaing the content of the sermons. The ONLY tool that permits the regulation of sermon content, is 501(c)3. Without that tax status, there would not be the power to subpoena the sermons.

What happens if they don't comply with the subpoena? Wouldn't they face prison time?

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not stupidity, I saw multiple commenters on a libertarian site, saying that it's a good thing that Kent Hovind was put in prison by the IRS. Because they think preaching creationism is a threat to liberty and free thinking. These are people who don't even think the IRS should exist.

Some people who know better want an Atheistocracy.

There are way too many "libertarians" who devolve instantly into tyrants at the presence of a Christian.

[Brett85]

@Gunny, I'm not sure why you keep quoting my comment. I'm in favor of marijuana legalization. But I just don't believe that marijuana prohibition compares to throwing people in prison simply for practicing their religion.

[tod evans]

@Gunny, I'm not sure why you keep quoting my comment. I'm in favor of marijuana legalization. But I just don't believe that marijuana prohibition compares to throwing people in prison simply for practicing their religion.

This is a dishonest twist TC...:mad:

Threatening to throw someone in goal for their speech is what's going on here.

[Brett85]

I don't really see how a church's 501(c)3 status gives a local government the power to subpoena sermons. I would think that it would be a federal issue if a pastor or a church violated the terms of the 501(c)3 agreement and got too heavily involved in politics. It would be something that would be dealt with by the IRS. But I don't see how that would be in any way a local issue.

[Brett85]

Threatening to throw someone in goal for their speech is what's going on here.

:confused: :confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

What happens if they don't comply with the subpoena? Wouldn't they face prison time?

The subpoena could not have been issued in the first place without a legal justification for the regulation of speech from the pulpit. The only legal justification for regulating speech from the pulpit is 501(c)3. They even use the codeword "political speech" in order to place it under 501(c)3. If not for them being under that tax status, there would have been no grounds for the subpoena in the first place.

[jbauer]

Not so, they are subpoenaing the content of the sermons. The ONLY tool that permits the regulation of sermon content, is 501(c)3. Without that tax status, there would not be the power to subpoena the sermons.

I honestly don't think that the 501c3 is that important. I'm on our church board. If we were to file a schedule C. We could easily pretty much eliminate any profit with expenses. Not to mention we could play the depreciation game and never show a profit. Its the tax deductible contributions that members give that might get hurt some.

I still don't agree that getting rid of the 501c3 would allow "us" to tell the government to go Fk itself. Look at the bakeries and florists who didn't want to provide services to gay customers. The government stepped in there....they obviously weren't non-profit.

[GunnyFreedom]

I honestly don't think that the 501c3 is that important. I'm on our church board. If we were to file a schedule C. We could easily pretty much eliminate any profit with expenses. Not to mention we could play the depreciation game and never show a profit. Its the tax deductible contributions that members give that might get hurt some.

I still don't agree that getting rid of the 501c3 would allow "us" to tell the government to go Fk itself. Look at the bakeries and florists who didn't want to provide services to gay customers. The government stepped in there....they obviously weren't non-profit.

501(c)3 requires that the church allow government to regulate speech from the pulpit. The only authority in the pulpit is God. This means that the church agrees that government has the power to regulate God. Barack Obama or this crazy mayor may not think blasphemy and idolatry are big deals, but God certainly does, and 'a little leaven leavens the whole lump.'

[dannno]

I'm not in favor of marijuana prohibition, but I still don't really think there's any comparison between that and throwing people in prison simply for practicing their faith. Still, your point about how pastors should be more consistent defenders of liberty is valid.

It's exactly the same thing.

You can claim plants are dangerous, I can claim religion is dangerous. In the end, kidnapping somebody for practicing either is equally wrong.

[GunnyFreedom]

@Gunny, I'm not sure why you keep quoting my comment. I'm in favor of marijuana legalization. But I just don't believe that marijuana prohibition compares to throwing people in prison simply for practicing their religion.

:confused:

[Brett85]

:confused:

I guess I wasn't really sure why you kept quoting my comment. I guess I'm confused at this point as well.

[tod evans]

:confused: :confused:

Nobody is " throwing people in prison simply for practicing their religion".

The government is threatening to toss 'em in the joint for non-compliance with a court order, ie; turn over the records.

A "smart" pastor would learn from government herself and either lose the data or forget what happened...;)

[Spikender]

It's not stupidity, I saw multiple commenters on a libertarian site, saying that it's a good thing that Kent Hovind was put in prison by the IRS. Because they think preaching creationism is a threat to liberty and free thinking. These are people who don't even think the IRS should exist.

Some people who know better want an Atheistocracy.

FUCK CHRISTIANS SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY 420 LOLOLOLOL

... how did I do?

[Brett85]

It's exactly the same thing.

You can claim plants are dangerous, I can claim religion is dangerous. In the end, kidnapping somebody for practicing either is equally wrong.

Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. I think it's a stretch of the 1st Amendment to say that smoking marijuana is a form of free speech. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I think the states have the right to ban it if they want to. I don't think that a state government violates the Constitution when they vote to ban marijuana. So I think that's a key difference. But I imagine you might disagree with me on the Constitutional question.

[Brett85]

Nobody is " throwing people in prison simply for practicing their religion".

The government is threatening to toss 'em in the joint for non-compliance with a court order, ie; turn over the records.

A "smart" pastor would learn from government herself and either lose the data or forget what happened...;)

Ok. You said "throw someone in goal" in your post. I figured that was a typo, but I wasn't sure. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess I wasn't really sure why you kept quoting my comment. I guess I'm confused at this point as well.
The multiquote kept sticking and I had to delete the multiquoted post by hand a couple times. It shouldn't be on the thread more than once.

And Tod's post makes a lot more sense if you realize that goal is a typo for jail.

[GunnyFreedom]

Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. I think it's a stretch of the 1st Amendment to say that smoking marijuana is a form of free speech. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I think the states have the right to ban it if they want to. I don't think that a state government violates the Constitution when they vote to ban marijuana. So I think that's a key difference. But I imagine you might disagree with me on the Constitutional question.

Freedom to own your own body is a pretty fundamental right also.

[dannno]

Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. I think it's a stretch of the 1st Amendment to say that smoking marijuana is a form of free speech. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I think the states have the right to ban it if they want to. I don't think that a state government violates the Constitution when they vote to ban marijuana. So I think that's a key difference. But I imagine you might disagree with me on the Constitutional question.

You got it all wrong, states don't have the moral right to ban a plant, the Federal Govt lacks the right to stop them from banning it.

Kidnapping somebody for having a plant that grows naturally is just as wrong, morally, as kidnapping somebody for practicing their religion.

[tod evans]

Ok. You said "throw someone in goal" in your post. I figured that was a typo, but I wasn't sure. :)

Goal, jail, joint, crossbar hotel, hoosegow are all synonyms.....;)

[William Tell]

FUCK CHRISTIANS SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY 420 LOLOLOLOL

... how did I do?

Pretty darn good, garyjohnson2016becausethelibertarianpartyisretarde dandhasnoprinciplesbutwouldratherhaveabignamewhowh ineslikealittlegirlandhatesrandpaul.

[Brett85]

Freedom to own your own body is a pretty fundamental right also.

So do you think the federal courts should strike down state laws that ban marijuana?

[Brett85]

You got it all wrong, states don't have the moral right to ban a plant, the Federal Govt lacks the right to stop them from banning it.

Yeah, that's probably a better way to phrase it.

[GunnyFreedom]

So do you think the federal courts should strike down state laws that ban marijuana?

If said States do not have a provision in their State Constitutions granting them the power for such prohibitions, then yes, it would fall under the 9th Amendment -- which is certainly more Constitutional authority to render judgement against States than "Congress shall make no law."

[jmdrake]

501(c)3 requires that the church allow government to regulate speech from the pulpit. The only authority in the pulpit is God. This means that the church agrees that government has the power to regulate God. Barack Obama or this crazy mayor may not think blasphemy and idolatry are big deals, but God certainly does, and 'a little leaven leavens the whole lump.'

Maybe if the PTB push this hard enough more churches will realize their interpretation of Romans 13 is a farce and join in the call to abolish the IRS?

[heavenlyboy34]

A lot of people overuse the word libertarian nowadays. No wonder there are so many fake libertarians.

Damn straight. :(

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe if the PTB push this hard enough more churches will realize their interpretation of Romans 13 is a farce and join in the call to abolish the IRS?

Just out of curiosity (I agree with you of course) what is your interpretation?

[pcosmar]

Yeah, that's probably a better way to phrase it.

Probably. But states are still subject to the restrictions of the Constitution.

And use of a plant CAN be religious. States have no right to impose, or restrict the free practice of religion than the Federal Government.

States (counties and cities) are restricted by the same Constitution that restricts the Fed. (allegedly the Law of the Land)

[jmdrake]

So do you think the federal courts should strike down state laws that ban marijuana?

Well if we could just get the federal government to strike down federal laws banning marijuana that would be a huge start. It's funny that some of the same people that support the "Keep your hands off my body" argument when it comes to abortion don't support drug decriminalization. Here's a question. Should states be able to force you to "eat healthy"?

[jbauer]

Here's a question. Should states be able to force you to "eat healthy"?

Absolutely!!! Especially if they're in the NE. I say ban big sodas, double cheeseburgers & pizza!!! :p

[jmdrake]

Just out of curiosity (I agree with you of course) what is your interpretation?

My current interpretation is this. The Christian church was under the thumb of one of the most evil governments known to man. I believe Romans 13 was written in code to avoid the wrath of the state. Here's the key IMO.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended

Note that Paul was imprisoned, beaten and ultimately killed by the "rulers" who "hold no terror for those who do right." Now this was written before Paul's death, but he had seen other apostles beheaded. So clearly he had to know that these "rulers" who were supposedly "ordained of God" didn't always "commend" people for doing right. The other key is this. Jesus said:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So why is persecution not a "terror"? If you are being persecuted for a good cause. Note that I believe this applies to more than just the cause of Christ. Some of the same people who want to misquote Romans 13 to me are all "We shall overcome" every MLK day. But Dr. King resisted laws he felt were unjust. It wasn't a sin to comply with segregation. Some pastors quoted Romans 13 at MLK. But now he methods are pretty much universally admired even by those who still criticize him.

So I don't think Christians should "bring down wrath" upon themselves by disobeying laws just to disobey them. But civil disobedience is definitely Christian.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe if the PTB push this hard enough more churches will realize their interpretation of Romans 13 is a farce and join in the call to abolish the IRS?

One can certainly hope so.

I'd love to hear what some of these pastors have to say about it now, because I'm sure at least some of them preached that nonsense from the pulpit.

[GunnyFreedom]

Maybe if the PTB push this hard enough more churches will realize their interpretation of Romans 13 is a farce and join in the call to abolish the IRS?

Problem is this church (note, I did not say "the Church") seems to have grown beyond the ability to repent. Almost none of these people would be able to admit that they were wrong on anything, unless it's some kind of sex scandal plastered all over the TV.

[Christian Liberty]

One can certainly hope so.

I'd love to hear what some of these pastors have to say about it now, because I'm sure at least some of them preached that nonsense from the pulpit.

Somehow, I've never actually heard a sermon on Romans 13. I have heard it mentioned numerous times (more than any other passage) in political debates, but I've never seen it in a sermon.

[Brett85]

Well if we could just get the federal government to strike down federal laws banning marijuana that would be a huge start.

I completely agree with that. I just believe that all of these issues should be dealt with locally, as our founders did. Taking these issues away from the states means more centralized power and authority, which is antithetical to liberty. (Unless we're talking about a right that's specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms)

[GunnyFreedom]

I completely agree with that. I just believe that all of these issues should be dealt with locally, as our founders did. Taking these issues away from the states means more centralized power and authority, which is antithetical to liberty. (Unless we're talking about a right that's specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as freedom of religion or the right to keep and bear arms)

So what does the 9th Amendment mean?

[Christian Liberty]

So what does the 9th Amendment mean?

Wait, do you believe the Bill of Rights actually addresses the states? I thought it was just intended to restrict the Feds.

Broad construction is a dangerous road to take, IMO.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wait, do you believe the Bill of Rights actually addresses the states? I thought it was just intended to restrict the Feds.

Broad construction is a dangerous road to take, IMO.

Depends on the text of the Amendment. Some Amendments address Congress, some address the States, and some address the people.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" addresses the people, therefore it impacts ALL levels of government.

The Tenth Amendment impacts the States. The Ninth Amendment discusses the rights of the people.

[Brett85]

So what does the 9th Amendment mean?

The 9th Amendment addresses unenumerated rights, but I think that if the courts are going to claim that something is an unenumerated right, they should actually have to quote from our founding fathers on what they considered to be rights. Our founders didn't include every single thing they considered to be a right in the Bill of Rights. You can see from their other writings that they consider other things to be a right as well, such as freedom to travel. So that would be an example of something that would likely be covered under the 9th Amendment. But I think it becomes problematic when you just have unelected liberal judges substituting their own judgment for what they consider to be an unenumerated right, without regard for what our founding fathers actually believed. The left believes that something like sodomy is a right under the 9th Amendment, which is just ridiculous when you consider that there were laws against sodomy all across the United States at the time that the Constitution was written. I believe in the idea of unenumerated rights, but not everything that's unenumerated is a right. You have to look at the writings of our founding fathers to see what they considered to be a right. I don't see any evidence in the writings of our founders that they considered drug use to be a right that can't be taken away by any government.

[GunnyFreedom]

The 9th Amendment addresses unenumerated rights, but I think that if the courts are going to claim that something is an unenumerated right, they should actually have to quote from our founding fathers on what they considered to be rights. Our founders didn't include every single thing they considered to be a right in the Bill of Rights. You can see from their other writings that they consider other things to be a right as well, such as freedom to travel. So that would be an example of something that would likely be covered under the 9th Amendment. But I think it becomes problematic when you just have unelected liberal judges substituting their own judgment for what they consider to be an unenumerated right, without regard for what our founding fathers actually believed. The left believes that something like sodomy is a right under the 9th Amendment, which is just ridiculous when you consider that there were laws against sodomy all across the United States at the time that the Constitution was written. I believe in the idea of unenumerated rights, but not everything that's unenumerated is a right. You have to look at the writings of our founding fathers to see what they considered to be a right. I don't see any evidence in the writings of our founders that they considered drug use to be a right that can't be taken away by any government.

I haven't gotten into talking about drug use yet. What if it was broccoli they wanted to ban? We are talking about the right to own your own body, and to decide what goes into it. This is as fundamental a right as the freedom of religion. If I own my own body then I, and I alone can decide what does and doesn't go into it. if I cannot decide what goes into my body then I do not own my own body, which is slavery.

the right of self-ownership is as fundamental and inviolate a right as they come. Whether something is a drug or just a vegetable is beside the point. By making this about "drug use" you are actually relying on an emotional argument that is effective with conservatives. From a Constitutional and philosophical and liberty perspective, there is no difference between cannabis and broccoli.

If the US Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to prohibit it, and the US Constitution does not grant to States the power to prohibit it, and the State Constitution does not grant the State the power to prohibit it, then if nothing else it's covered under the 9th Amendment. Mind you a 13th Amendment argument could certainly be made as well.

[Sonny Tufts]

501(c)3 requires that the church allow government to regulate speech from the pulpit.

The only speech that 501(c)(3) is aimed at is that which endorses or opposes a particular candidate for public office or seeks to influence legislation. If a minister wants to preach that all gays should be killed just as the Bible commands, he is free to do so. But if he uses his pulpit to denounce the ordinance and to seek to have it rejected by a referendum, it could result in the loss of the church's 501(c)(3) status if such activity amounts to a "substantial part" of the church's activities.

In any event, it's the IRS, not the city, whose job it is to look into such things.

[GunnyFreedom]

The only speech that 501(c)(3) is aimed at is that which endorses or opposes a particular candidate for public office or seeks to influence legislation. If a minister wants to preach that all gays should be killed just as the Bible commands, he is free to do so. But if he uses his pulpit to denounce the ordinance and to seek to have it rejected by a referendum, it could result in the loss of the church's 501(c)(3) status if such activity amounts to a "substantial part" of the church's activities.

In any event, it's the IRS, not the city, whose job it is to look into such things.

Doesn't matter. God did not say "I am God over everything except for political speech." Allowing the government to regulate anything out of a pulpit is idolatry. A church voluntarily agreeing to allow the government to regulate speech from the pulpit is blasphemy. It doesn't matter if the pastor thinks he has no reason to talk on that subject. It's not supposed to be the pastor who decides what comes out of a pulpit, it's supposed to be God. The notion that a government can tell God what He is and is not allowed to say is really, really bad, and Christians who accept such things are in for a bad time at the Judgement.

[Brett85]

the right of self-ownership is as fundamental and inviolate a right as they come. Whether something is a drug or just a vegetable is beside the point. By making this about "drug use" you are actually relying on an emotional argument that is effective with conservatives. From a Constitutional and philosophical and liberty perspective, there is no difference between cannabis and broccoli.

Most conservatives would certainly disagree with my position that marijuana should be legal. My position isn't that marijuana should be banned, just that I don't want the federal courts to interfere in state marijuana laws. It's the same position Ron Paul takes.

[GunnyFreedom]

Most conservatives would certainly disagree with my position that marijuana should be legal. My position isn't that marijuana should be banned, just that I don't want the federal courts to interfere in state marijuana laws. It's the same position Ron Paul takes.

So, if neither the Federal nor the State Constitutions grant any government the power to ban broccoli, they can do it anyway just because?

[Brett85]

If the US Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to prohibit it, and the US Constitution does not grant to States the power to prohibit it, and the State Constitution does not grant the State the power to prohibit it, then if nothing else it's covered under the 9th Amendment. Mind you a 13th Amendment argument could certainly be made as well.

I think if the Constitution neither gives the federal government the power to prohibit it or the power to prevent the states from prohibiting it, it's an issue for the states to decide under the 10th Amendment.

[Brett85]

So, if neither the Federal nor the State Constitutions grant any government the power to ban broccoli, they can do it anyway just because?

It seems as though the state government wishing to ban it would at least have to provide some reason for wanting to ban it. And I'm not for banning marijuana, but there's a clear difference between marijuana and broccoli. Marijuana is a mind altering substance that affects the way that people act. Broccoli is simply a vegetable that is good for you. Again, I'm not for banning marijuana, but comparing broccoli to marijuana is quite a stretch in my opinion.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think if the Constitution neither gives the federal government the power to prohibit it or the power to prevent the states from prohibiting it, it's an issue for the states to decide under the 10th Amendment.

And if the State Constitution does not grant the power to ban broccoli, but their legislature just decides to do it anyway, that's okay?

[GunnyFreedom]

It seems as though the state government wishing to ban it would at least have to provide some reason for wanting to ban it. And I'm not for banning marijuana, but there's a clear difference between marijuana and broccoli. Marijuana is a mind altering substance that affects the way that people act. Broccoli is simply a vegetable that is good for you. Again, I'm not for banning marijuana, but comparing broccoli to marijuana is quite a stretch in my opinion.

They are only different if we don't own our own bodies.

[Brett85]

And if the State Constitution does not grant the power to ban broccoli, but their legislature just decides to do it anyway, that's okay?

It seems like if their state Constitution is silent on the issue, it's up to the people to decide. That's the way the issue was decided in Colorado. A majority of the people in Colorado voted to legalize marijuana. That's the way I believe the issue should be handled.

[GunnyFreedom]

It seems like if their state Constitution is silent on the issue, it's up to the people to decide. That's the way the issue was decided in Colorado. A majority of the people in Colorado voted to legalize marijuana. That's the way I believe the issue should be handled.

And if the State decided to ban broccoli my only recourse if i want broccoli is to move?

I adamantly disagree with you here. The fundamental right of self-ownership is THE MOST fundamental right we have as Americans.

[William Tell]

And if the State decided to ban broccoli my only recourse if i want broccoli is to move?

I adamantly disagree with you here. The fundamental right of self-ownership is THE MOST fundamental right we have as Americans.
You can either ignore the law, resist, or comply. Unfortunately, I don't see other options unless you have public servants who care about your liberty too. Unless you have enough neighbors who will stand with you and make them back down.

[Brett85]

And if the State decided to ban broccoli my only recourse if i want broccoli is to move?

I adamantly disagree with you here. The fundamental right of self-ownership is THE MOST fundamental right we have as Americans.

If everyone just ignored ridiculous laws like that, they wouldn't be enforced.

[Brett85]

I don't really see where you draw the line when it comes to "unenumerated rights" though. The left believes that abortion is an unemerated right under the 9th Amendment, that even though the Constitution doesn't mention the abortion issue, the states don't have the right to ban abortion since it's an unemerated right that women have under the 9th Amendment. It's a dangerous idea to just give federal judges the authority to decide what's an "unemerated right" under the 9th Amendment without regard to the writings of our founding fathers on all of these various issues.

[GunnyFreedom]

You can either ignore the law, resist, or comply. Unfortunately, I don't see other options unless you have public servants who care about your liberty too. Unless you have enough neighbors who will stand with you and make them back down.

Well, my neighbors don't really care about broccoli, so they are no help. I read the State and federal Constitutions and I don't see any power in either document for any government to ban broccoli. So I file suit in State court, and the State courts decide the suit is ridiculous and decide to not even hear it. What do I do now?

I go to the federal courts on an Article 4 Section 4 violation of the US Constitution. The State government has no authority to enforce laws that do not arise from powers granted to it in their Constitution, and the federal government has a positive duty to enforce 'a republican form of government' against the States.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't really see where you draw the line when it comes to "unenumerated rights" though. The left believes that abortion is an unemerated right under the 9th Amendment, that even though the Constitution doesn't mention the abortion issue, the states don't have the right to ban abortion since it's an unemerated right that women have under the 9th Amendment. It's a dangerous idea to just give federal judges the authority to decide what's an "unemerated right" under the 9th Amendment without regard to the writings of our founding fathers on all of these various issues.

The federal Constitution and the several State Constitutions do indeed cite a right to life, and go on to say that no person may be deprived of life without due process.

[Brett85]

The federal Constitution and the several State Constitutions do indeed cite a right to life, and go on to say that no person may be deprived of life without due process.

Ok. But what else is an unemerated right under the 9th Amendment? Where do you draw the line at, and what issues do you think the states have the right to legislate?

[William Tell]

Well, my neighbors don't really care about broccoli, so they are no help. I read the State and federal Constitutions and I don't see any power in either document for any government to ban broccoli. So I file suit in State court, and the State courts decide the suit is ridiculous and decide to not even hear it. What do I do now?

I go to the federal courts on an Article 4 Section 4 violation of the US Constitution. The State government has no authority to enforce laws that do not arise from powers granted to it in their Constitution, and the federal government has a positive duty to enforce 'a republican form of government' against the States.

Good luck man, it would be nice for the federal courts to occasionally err on the side of personal liberty. I guess that would mean you have public servants who care about liberty.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ok. But what else is an unemerated right under the 9th Amendment? Where do you draw the line at, and what issues do you think the states have the right to legislate?

Well, given that the federal government guarantees to the States a republican form of government, basically any powers not granted to the federal or State governments in either the federal or State Constitutions, would be unenumerated rights. If we run across something that had not been thought of previously that needs legislating, then a Constitutional Amendment would be required, either at the State or the federal level.

[GunnyFreedom]

Good luck man, it would be nice for the federal courts to occasionally err on the side of personal liberty. I guess that would mean you have public servants who care about liberty.

LOL I'm not saying the beggars would do right, I'm just disputing the idea that the federal courts have no standing. :p

[Brett85]

Well, given that the federal government guarantees to the States a republican form of government, basically any powers not granted to the federal or State governments in either the federal or State Constitutions, would be unenumerated rights. If we run across something that had not been thought of previously that needs legislating, then a Constitutional Amendment would be required, either at the State or the federal level.

I don't necessarily see how state Constitutions have to function in exactly the same way that the federal Constitution functions. The federal Constitution contains enumerated powers given to the federal government, and everything else is left to the states or the people to decide. But I don't necessarily think it's the case that state Constitutions have to operate under the concept of enumerated powers. I don't think most state Constitutions operate under enumerated powers. The U.S Constitution says that the federal government is supposed to operate under enumerated powers. I don't see anywhere where it says that state governments have to operate the same way.

[William Tell]

LOL I'm not saying the beggars would do right, I'm just disputing the idea that the federal courts have no standing. :p

Do you consider all federal courts Constitutional?

[William Tell]

I don't necessarily see how state Constitutions have to function in exactly the same way that the federal Constitution functions. The federal Constitution contains enumerated powers given to the federal government, and everything else is left to the states or the people to decide. But I don't necessarily think it's the case that state Constitutions have to operate under the concept of enumerated powers. I don't think most state Constitutions operate under enumerated powers. The U.S Constitution says that the federal government is supposed to operate under enumerated powers. I don't see anywhere where it says that state governments have to operate the same way.


9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is a little vague...

[William Tell]

LOL I'm not saying the beggars would do right, I'm just disputing the idea that the federal courts have no standing. :p

At least SCOTUS did deliver a pretty good decision in the Heller case, far to complex and legal speaky though IMO. Some of it was for the wrong reasons I thought at the time, but I have not read it in a while.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't necessarily see how state Constitutions have to function in exactly the same way that the federal Constitution functions. The federal Constitution contains enumerated powers given to the federal government, and everything else is left to the states or the people to decide. But I don't necessarily think it's the case that state Constitutions have to operate under the concept of enumerated powers. I don't think most state Constitutions operate under enumerated powers. The U.S Constitution says that the federal government is supposed to operate under enumerated powers. I don't see anywhere where it says that state governments have to operate the same way.

No, State Constitution operate under implied powers. Where does a State Constitution imply the power to ban broccoli?

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you consider all federal courts Constitutional?
The existence of the courts or their actions? Their existence is certainly Constitutional. Most of what they do, however, is not.

[GunnyFreedom]

The right of self ownership is absolutely fundamental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Brett85]

No, State Constitution operate under implied powers. Where does a State Constitution imply the power to ban broccoli?

What if a state Constitution contained language that banning broccoli was an enumerated power? Would it be Constitutional for the state government to ban broccoli then?

[Brett85]

All I see in the federal Constitution is that everything that's not enumerated in the Constitution is left to the states or to the people, per the 10th Amendment. To me that means that the states are going to have the right to legislate on a lot of issues that the feds don't have the right to legislate on.

[GunnyFreedom]

What if a state Constitution contained language that banning broccoli was an enumerated power? Would it be Constitutional for the state government to ban broccoli then?

Possibly. It certainly eliminates most of the problematic mechanics. There would still be some philosophical arguments to be made but they would be vague and mostly untenable. It would still be a fundamental violation of the natural right to self ownership, there would simply be less of a Constitutional argument to be made.

[GunnyFreedom]

All I see in the federal Constitution is that everything that's not enumerated in the Constitution is left to the states or to the people, per the 10th Amendment.

There is a heck of a lot more in the US Constitution than just the 10th Amendment. For instance, Article 1 Section 10, and Article 4 Section 4.


To me that means that the states are going to have the right to legislate on a lot of issues that the feds don't have the right to legislate on.

That's a given. Claiming ownership over our bodies is not one of them.

[Brett85]

That's a given. Claiming ownership over our bodies is not one of them.

So your view is that the U.S Supreme Court should strike down all state drug laws as being unconstitutional and unilaterally legalize all drugs?

[GunnyFreedom]

So your view is that the U.S Supreme Court should strike down all state drug laws as being unconstitutional and unilaterally legalize all drugs?
For those States whose Constitutions do not imply such powers, absolutely. Otherwise the federal government would fail in it's duty to guarantee to the States a republican form of government. We aren't allowed to govern by whim in this country. Furthermore, a much more complicated case could be made that the fundamental right of self ownership would trum even the State Constitutions.

[William Tell]

I go to the federal courts on an Article 4 Section 4 violation of the US Constitution. The State government has no authority to enforce laws that do not arise from powers granted to it in their Constitution, and the federal government has a positive duty to enforce 'a republican form of government' against the States.

Not sure if that is a correct interpretation of Article 4 Section 4. Isn't it guaranteeing it to the States? It doesn't say anything about being against the States. You make it sound like the feds are supposed to spank each State if it gets out of line. How far can it go?




Article. IV.Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not sure if that is a correct interpretation of Article 4 Section 4. Isn't it guaranteeing it to the States? It doesn't say anything about being against the States. You make it sound like the feds are supposed to spank each State if it gets out of line. How far can it go?

If the States are not providing a republican form of government, then absolutely. Otherwise it is not a guarantee, but just a SWLOD.

[Lucille]

Houston Already Backing Off Its Church Sermon Subpoenas
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/15/houston-already-backing-off-on-church-se


...It seems to have blown up magnificently, and now the city is backtracking just a little bit. Mayor Parker’s spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal this afternoon:


Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons. 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 (HERO) in January. Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday. Both agree the original documents were overly broad. The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing. Feldman says the focus should be only on communications related to the HERO petition process.

The headline for the Journal post says that the mayor was surprised that the subpoenas included their sermons. Her Twitter feed seemed to suggest otherwise yesterday:

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/2014_10/Annisetweet.png?h=173&w=585

[Brett85]

For those States whose Constitutions do not imply such powers, absolutely. Otherwise the federal government would fail in it's duty to guarantee to the States a republican form of government. We aren't allowed to govern by whim in this country. Furthermore, a much more complicated case could be made that the fundamental right of self ownership would trum even the State Constitutions.

Then we just fundamentally disagree on that. Your position gives too much power to the federal courts, to the federal government. I want as many issues as possible to be decided locally. I want to take away power from the federal government, not give them more power. Granting the federal government the authority to dictatorially overturn state drug laws is not consistent with federalism or limited government, in my opinion.

[GunnyFreedom]

As to how far it can go, that power would extend to interventions against anything that was violative of a republican form of government. Which SHOULD be basically nothing. But if the States do things that violate a republican form of government then the federal government has a positive duty to correct that for so long as a given State is a party to the U.S. Constitution.

A State that does not want to provide a republican form of government also should have the right to secede.

[GunnyFreedom]

Then we just fundamentally disagree on that. Your position gives too much power to the federal courts, to the federal government. I want as many issues as possible to be decided locally. I want to take away power from the federal government, not give them more power. Granting the federal government the authority to dictatorially overturn state drug laws is not consistent with federalism or limited government, in my opinion.

I do not see any benefit to local tyranny over federal. Our government is checks and balances, not checks and checks. These powers are pressed against each other to keep everyone in check. If the governor of my State decides to go all Chairman Mao on us citizens, I for one will welcome the federal troops to come put the rabid dog down.

There re is nothing to recommend a local tyranny over a federal tyranny.

[William Tell]

If the States are not providing a republican form of government, then absolutely. Otherwise it is not a guarantee, but just a SWLOD.

This becomes problematic when it is the State Constitution goes against Liberty and preexisting Rights guaranteed in the U.S Constitution. For example, State Constitutions which 'grant' power to the legislature to regulate the wearing of arms.

Do you consider that a situation where the Federal Courts should intervene?

Certainly I want such foolish amendments repealed, but I don't see a better solution ultimately than doing it on the State level. Otherwise, homosexual marriage etc will be forced on the states through the vague promises of the 9th Amendment. The people of the States were the ones who elected the Representatives who made the Constitutions, except for ones under Reconstruction I suppose.

[Brett85]

I do not see any benefit to local tyranny over federal.

It's a lot easier to move to a different town or move to a different state than to move to a different country.

[Anti Federalist]

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/2014_10/Annisetweet.png?h=173&w=585

"Fair Game" for government punishment, for speaking their mind.

Inside the mind of a ***** Stalinist.

[GunnyFreedom]

And I will say it again, the right to self ownership is the most fundamental right of all. Just because some guy lives down the street instead of 5000 miles away does not give my neighbor more of a right to make me a chattel slave than the guy 5000 miles away. NEITHER of them have the right to own my body. The dictator is the one trying to allow or justify slavery.

[William Tell]

I do not see any benefit to local tyranny over federal. Our government is checks and balances, not checks and checks. These powers are pressed against each other to keep everyone in check. If the governor of my State decides to go all Chairman Mao on us citizens, I for one will welcome the federal troops to come put the rabid dog down.

There re is nothing to recommend a local tyranny over a federal tyranny.

If you need federal troops to stop your governor, it is because you and your neighbors ultimately suck. Unfortunately, those federal troops will be kept in supplies, and may come down on those of us in another state who do not suck. I do not object in theory to tyranny being stopped by anyone. But the growing leviathan is always the threat. If the people of Mass are so stupid as to want Romney care, who can afford to save the few smart people from their neighbors stupidity?

This is why problems must ultimately be solved locally imho.

[GunnyFreedom]

This becomes problematic when it is the State Constitution goes against Liberty and preexisting Rights guaranteed in the U.S Constitution. For example, State Constitutions which 'grant' power to the legislature to regulate the wearing of arms.

Do you consider that a situation where the Federal Courts should intervene?

Certainly I want such foolish amendments repealed, but I don't see a better solution ultimately than doing it on the State level. Otherwise, homosexual marriage etc will be forced on the states through the vague promises of the 9th Amendment. The people of the States were the ones who elected the Representatives who made the Constitutions, except for ones under Reconstruction I suppose.

reconstruction never ended. My state constitution was forced on us at bayonet point.

But the point is that the States can go full retard tyrant too. The US Constitution provides relief for that situation for as long as a state remains within the Union the fedgov can enforce a republican form of government. That does not mean that they have the power to invade a state for seceding.

If a state would rather not respect the natural rights of its citizens, then it should not be a part of the United States.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's a lot easier to move to a different town or move to a different state than to move to a different country.
Unless you are dissidents trying to cross armed checkpoints.

[GunnyFreedom]

If you need federal troops to stop your governor, it is because you and your neighbors ultimately suck. Unfortunately, those federal troops will be kept in supplies, and may come down on those of us in another state who do not suck. I do not object in theory to tyranny being stopped by anyone. But the growing leviathan is always the threat. If the people of Mass are so stupid as to want Romney care, who can afford to save the few smart people from their neighbors stupidity?

This is why problems must ultimately be solved locally imho.
I'm not saying that either government would do right in any of these situations. This discussion is about the theoretical balance of powers described in the U.S. Constitution. If a state government goes totally rogue and starts tyrannizing its citizens, then the U.S. Constitution provides a remedy. The people either embrace the tyranny and secede, or fedgov steps in on behalf of the people and stops it.

[twomp]

Speaking as someone who is in favor of gay marriages. I have to ask this question? How the hell did a lesbian get elected mayor in Houston? In San Francisco, I would understand but Houston? Were you all at home hiding from ISIS when it was time to vote or something?

The mayor is an idiot. She could have used this opportunity to prove that this whole lgbt thing isn't some evil movement but went and did the exact opposite. She will not win this battle. She will not get re-elected and her political career is now over. What a moron.

[Brett85]

I don't think that Houston is generally a very conservative city, even though Texas is conservative as a whole.

[Carlybee]

I don't think that Houston is generally a very conservative city, even though Texas is conservative as a whole.

It's not...it's pretty blue. Not as blue as Austin.

[jmdrake]

I haven't gotten into talking about drug use yet. What if it was broccoli they wanted to ban? We are talking about the right to own your own body, and to decide what goes into it. This is as fundamental a right as the freedom of religion. If I own my own body then I, and I alone can decide what does and doesn't go into it. if I cannot decide what goes into my body then I do not own my own body, which is slavery.

the right of self-ownership is as fundamental and inviolate a right as they come. Whether something is a drug or just a vegetable is beside the point. By making this about "drug use" you are actually relying on an emotional argument that is effective with conservatives. From a Constitutional and philosophical and liberty perspective, there is no difference between cannabis and broccoli.

If the US Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to prohibit it, and the US Constitution does not grant to States the power to prohibit it, and the State Constitution does not grant the State the power to prohibit it, then if nothing else it's covered under the 9th Amendment. Mind you a 13th Amendment argument could certainly be made as well.

I like your broccoli argument. Today nobody could conceive of banning broccoli. But in the late 1700s could anyone have conceived of banning drugs? I seem to recall that years ago cocaine was in teething salve. I understand the need for states rights to hold back and out of control federal government. But I wonder what people think the 9th amendment was for? Maybe the idea is "If people have had certain rights up until this point they should continue to have them?"

[Carlybee]

Mayor, city attorney distance themselves from sermon subpoenas


http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Parker-calls-ERO-sermon-supboeana-overly-broad-5824816.php


The state attorney general also sent them a letter demanding they withdraw the subpoenas.


Attorney General Greg Abbott Asks Houston City Attorney to Withdraw Subpoenas Seeking Sermons, Other Documents from Houston-area Pastors
AUSTIN -- Attorney General Abbott today asked that the Houston City Attorney to immediately withdraw the subpoenas sent last month to several Houston-area pastors seeking sermons, notes and other information.

In his letter to the city attorney, Attorney General Abbott said, “Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment. The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government.”

Attorney General Abbott's letter to Houston City Attorney David Feldman
October 15, 2014

Mr. David Feldman

City Attorney

City of Houston

900 Bagby, 4th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Dear Mr. Feldman:

Your office has demanded that four Houston pastors hand over to the city government many of their private papers, including their sermons. Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment. The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government. Nothing short of an immediate reversal by your office will provide that security. I call on you to withdraw the subpoenas without further delay.

I recognize that the subpoenas arise from litigation related to a petition to repeal an ordinance adopted by the city council. But the litigation discovery process is not a license for government officials to inquire into religious affairs. Nor is your office’s desire to vigorously support the ordinance any excuse for these subpoenas. No matter what public policy is at stake, government officials must exercise the utmost care when our work touches on religious matters. If we err, it must be on the side of preserving the autonomy of religious institutions and the liberty of religious believers. Your aggressive and invasive subpoenas show no regard for the very serious First Amendment considerations at stake.

A statement released by the Mayor’s Office claims that the subpoenas were prepared by outside lawyers and that neither you nor Mayor Parker was aware of them before they were issued. Nevertheless, these lawyers acted in the City’s name, and you are responsible for their actions. You should immediately instruct your lawyers to withdraw the City’s subpoenas. Religious institutions and their congregants should never have to worry that a government they disagree with will attempt to interfere in their religious affairs. Instead of safeguarding that trust, you appear to have given some of the most powerful law firms in Houston free rein to harass and intimidate pastors who oppose City policy. In good faith, I hope you merely failed to anticipate how inappropriately aggressive your lawyers would be. Many, however, believe your actions reflect the city government’s hostility to religious beliefs that do not align with city policies.

I urge you to demonstrate the City’s commitment to religious liberty and to true diversity of belief by unilaterally withdrawing these subpoenas immediately. Your stated intention to wait for further court proceedings falls woefully short of the urgent action needed to reassure the people of Houston that their government respects their freedom of religion and does not punish those who oppose city policies on religious grounds.

Sincerely,

Greg Abbott

Attorney General of Texas

[Anti Federalist]

Speaking as someone who is in favor of gay marriages. I have to ask this question? How the hell did a lesbian get elected mayor in Houston? In San Francisco, I would understand but Houston? Were you all at home hiding from ISIS when it was time to vote or something?

The mayor is an idiot. She could have used this opportunity to prove that this whole lgbt thing isn't some evil movement but went and did the exact opposite. She will not win this battle. She will not get re-elected and her political career is now over. What a moron.

As someone who is opposed to gay marriage, yet realizes that it is not for government to step in and determine what type of marriage is "valid", I agree.

[Carlybee]

Speaking as someone who is in favor of gay marriages. I have to ask this question? How the hell did a lesbian get elected mayor in Houston? In San Francisco, I would understand but Houston? Were you all at home hiding from ISIS when it was time to vote or something?

The mayor is an idiot. She could have used this opportunity to prove that this whole lgbt thing isn't some evil mo
vement but went and did the exact opposite. She will not win this battle. She will not get re-elected and her political career is now over. What a moron.


She has a huge following in the glbt community and there was nobody good running against her. She can't get re-elected. She is jonesing for a higher up office though and she's paying back markers and laying the groundwork. The Dems love her. She's not going away.

[donnay]

She has a huge following in the glbt community and there was nobody good running against her. She can't get re-elected. She is jonesing for a higher up office though and she's paying back markers and laying the groundwork. The Dems love her. She's not going away.

Yeah...they NEVER go away. :mad:

[Occam's Banana]

[emphasis added]

The Annals of Bad Ideas: Houston Responds to Religious Activism with Subpoenas for Sermon Contents
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/15/the-annals-of-bad-ideas-houston-responds


[Houston City Attorney David] Feldman is defending the subpoenas by pointing out a training video by a member of a local pastor council explaining the rules for collecting signatures for a ballot initiative. This illustrates that these folks were politically involved and therefore the speech was not protected, according to Feldman.

[...]

Just remember, folks ... they hate us for our freedom ...

[GunnyFreedom]

And so far as "too much federal power" the only way these checks and balances operate Constitutionally, is in defense of human liberty. No Constitutional argument can possibly be made for the fedgov forcing a State to ban broccoli, but a Constitutional argument can be made for fedgov prohibiting such bans. True to the nature of our Constitutional checks and balances, they only operate in one direction -- the defense of liberty.

[scottditzen]

And so far as "too much federal power" the only way these checks and balances operate Constitutionally, is in defense of human liberty. No Constitutional argument can possibly be made for the fedgov forcing a State to ban broccoli, but a Constitutional argument can be made for fedgov prohibiting such bans. True to the nature of our Constitutional checks and balances, they only operate in one direction -- the defense of liberty.

While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree that the Constitution is the ultimate defender of liberty. Historically the Constitution has been, and will likely continue to be, used as a mechanism to oppress individuals in some way.

Yes, the government CAN prevent you from growing broccoli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[GunnyFreedom]

While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree that the Constitution is the ultimate defender of liberty. Historically the Constitution has been, and will likely continue to be, used as a mechanism to oppress individuals in some way.

In order for that to happen, the Constitution has to be violated.


Yes, the government CAN prevent you from growing broccoli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Which was a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment.

[Lucille]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/just-send-the-witch-a-bible/


But the Washington Times reported city officials then issued a statement they would try to “narrow the scope” of their demands, a move that Joe La Rue, ADF legal counsel, said was “wholly inadequate.”

“These sermons, emails and texts have nothing to do with whether the coalition gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot,” he told the newspaper.

Christiana Holcom, ADF litigation counsel, pooh-poohed the idea that the city had in any way backed off the demands.

“The shame that the city of Houston has brought upon itself is real, but the claim that it has changed course is not. The city has so far taken no concrete action to withdraw the subpoenas. Furthermore, the subpoenas themselves are the problem – not just their request for pastors’ sermons,” she said.

“The city is not off the hook from its illegitimate request for emails, text messages, and other communications in which these pastors, who are not even party to this lawsuit, may have disagreed with the mayor. The way to fix this is to withdraw the subpoenas entirely. Otherwise, the city’s and the mayor’s overtures are simply more window-dressing intended to shield them from public scrutiny.”
[...]
Holcomb said, “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”

[Todd]

My friend sent me several articles about this from another point of view. I would hope someone with more insight on this than me could give some perspective on what these person's in the articles are saying "is not a big deal" and "perfectly legal".

http://americanvision.org/11407/houston-demanding-oversight-pastors-sermons/


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.

http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/10/15/houston-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-gay-rights-ordinance-case


The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” Evans said in her statement. “This included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”

[Brett85]

My friend sent me several articles about this from another point of view. I would hope someone with more insight on this than me could give some perspective on what these person's in the articles are saying "is not a big deal" and "perfectly legal".

http://americanvision.org/11407/houston-demanding-oversight-pastors-sermons/

http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/10/15/houston-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-gay-rights-ordinance-case

Why would they need the pastors' sermons that had to do with homosexuality? That has absolutely nothing to do with the petition drive.


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.

[acptulsa]

The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” Evans said in her statement. “This included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”

Last I checked, political speech is the most inviolate kind of speech there is in the U.S. For instance, it's the only kind immune from libel and slander laws. And it has been that way since before any of us were born.

So, are they saying this is not protected because these are churches? Got news for them. Restricting the state from meddling with churches is one of the things the Constitution does, and is a bedrock freedom of this nation. Restricting churches from meddling in the affairs of the state is tyranny, and following in the footsteps of Hitler and Stalin.


24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Of the people, by the people and for the people?

[Todd]

There are way too many "libertarians" who devolve instantly into tyrants at the presence of a Christian.

That's some funny stuff because when I went to my very first meet up for supporting Ron Paul back in 2007, the majority of the group were 1. Chrisitans 2. Pro Gun people.

[Carlybee]

I doubt the Mayor and her legal team were expecting the sh*tstorm that came out of this. Of course now since Republicans have jumped to the defense it's being spun as "Republicans are intolerant". Something everyone needs to remember about liberals...they only care about constitutional rights when they feel theirs are being infringed upon and the same goes for the neocons. They would rewrite the whole thing if they could. Don't expect them to observe or respect it.

[Carlybee]

Mayor Annise Parker will make an announcement about the city's controversial subpoenaing of five pastors at 10:30 this morning.

It was not immediately clear what she would announce, but Parker met with seven national clergy on Tuesday afternoon, listening to their concerns about religious liberties. The clergy urged Parker to pull down the subpoenas the city sent to five local pastors who led opposition to Houston's equal rights ordinance, now in limbo as conservative opponents take the city to court. Parker's administration has withdrawn its request for some of the sermons, which proved a particular flashpoint, and the clergy said Tuesday she seemed to be considering whether to remove the subpoenas altogether.

When news of the subpoenas first surfaced, Parker and City Attorney David Feldman said they did not know about the request for sermons and characterized the subpoena as "overly broad."

The subpoenas are part of a discovery phase in a suit filed by equal rights opponents, who largely take issue with the rights the law extends to gay and transgender residents.

The original subpoena requested "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." Parker removed the specific request for sermons, but has still been dogged by negative press from some religious groups.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Mayor-set-to-make-announcement-on-sermon-subpoenas-5855458.php#photo-7033174

[Carlybee]

Update: subpoenas rescinded

http://abc13.com/news/city-withdraws-subpoenas-related-to-hero/371500/