Houston mayor sues preachers for content of sermons about homosexuality

[BoogyMan]

The new lesbian mayor of Houston TX is suing and demanding to see all sermons and speeches of preachers in Houston that deal with homosexuality, gender identity, or that mention her. If this idiot is successful we will be just another step closer to becoming the modern equivalent of the failed socialist/Marxist countries of the 20th century.


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. (http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/14/city-of-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons/)

[Gunny]

The new lesbian mayor of Houston TX is suing and demanding to see all sermons and speeches of preachers in Houston that deal with homosexuality, gender identity, or that mention her. If this idiot is successful we will be just another step closer to becoming the modern equivalent of the failed socialist/Marxist countries of the 20th century.



Where's the separation of church and state here?

[BoogyMan]

These left-wing nutjobs have come crawling out of the woodwork since the hideous mistake the country made by taking a turn to the left and they are going to push us until we fight back and squash their inquisitions and intrusions upon constitutionally affirmed freedoms.

[jimnyc]

Looks like "butch" is angry that she wasn't accepted, and now will try to get a little retaliation. I would write all kinds of nasty things about butch and her lifestyle. What is she going to do next? Sue them for discussing their religious beliefs while in church? That's now somehow "discrimination"? This is what happens when you let nitwits run the show.

And then this...


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.

So not allowing a man to use the women's restroom is discrimination?

[Bilgerat]

Where's the separation of church and state here?

It seems that the Mayor would be well served by reading (and understanding) the Constitution

The 1st Amendment Right (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights including the 1st Amendment Right.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It seems that the Mayor would be well served by reading (and understanding) the Constitution

The 1st Amendment Right (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights including the 1st Amendment Right.

The obaba say, blacks, muslims and gays are above the law, hence above having to abide by any damn constitutional constraints(much like him).
He just has not got around to decreeing that Executive Order yet but most gubbermint officials already know it by heart. After all , the scum has had 6 miserable years to teach them !!-Tyr

[revelarts]

Should there be an "it'd never happen here" thread"?
Should there be a "Slippery Slope documented" section on the board?

This is way down the slope,
at this point we're standing in mid air like Wile E Coyote just waiting for gravity to take over.
The next steps are laws against "hate speech" which means laws against quoting "the discriminator portions" of the Bible in sermons or TV or radio or on the job or in public.

Free speech is redefined. They'll never say (admit) that free speech is being denied.
They'll say stuff like "you don't have a right to 'harm' others with your speech". "you can't yell fire in a theater right hmmm?" In their MAD rush to justify and normalize perversion they'll twist -up into down- and -light into darkness-.

but it started way back when people decided easy divorce was ok and that sex outside of heterosexual marriage was ..." not really that bad... don't be a prude... the Bible is an old book... . free sex... free love... orgies... nudist camps... playboy mag... multiple partners... the next step inevitably was homosexual sexual liberation, of course.
The next will be sex with animals, polygamy and finally pedophilia and necrophilia.

if there is NO sexual moral standard the culture, there IS no standard.
anything goes.
And those that get in the way of sexual "freedom" are enemies of the state folks.
They will read the constitution to support it or change the Constitution.
Unless people turn to God and REALLY decide they've had enough of the creeping perversions and just say it's WRONG and we will not support it or candidates that do. EVEN IF THEY ARE REPUBLICANS. well then :shrug:

If not, well just expect state controlled speech to increase and some pastors in jail or fined as a matter of course.
God help America

[fj1200]

Should there be an "it'd never happen here" thread"?
Should there be a "Slippery Slope documented" section on the board?

Well, so far it's just an "idiot mayor" thread. :poke:

[revelarts]

Well, so far it's just an "idiot mayor" thread. :poke:

the act is not done in a vacuum FJ.
how many law suits by homosexuals against Christians do you need to see before we admit that it's a part of the way they want to move forwarded their agenda.

AND the broader point is obvious in loosening of laws and mores surrounding sex over the past 70 years.

Why would even try to quarentine this incident out a one-off?

[BoogyMan]

Well, so far it's just an "idiot mayor" thread. :poke:

It is a destroy the 1st amendment thread. The "idiot mayor" was able to procure subpoenas for this. That means the legal infrastructure allowed her inquest to happen.

[PixieStix]

Well, so far it's just an "idiot mayor" thread. :poke:

An idiot mayor that wants her agenda to abrogate the 1st amendment. You are seriously OK with that?

[fj1200]

It is a destroy the 1st amendment thread. The "idiot mayor" was able to procure subpoenas for this. That means the legal infrastructure allowed her inquest to happen.

I don't think that's true here. The city issuing subpoenas is different than one issued by a court. I think the result here will be nil and chalked up to an idiot mayor.


the act is not done in a vacuum FJ.
how many law suits by homosexuals against Christians do you need to see before we admit that it's a part of the way they want to move forwarded their agenda.

AND the broader point is obvious in loosening of laws and mores surrounding sex over the past 70 years.

Why would even try to quarentine this incident out a one-off?

The act is done by whack job lefties and should be shut down fast. And the lawsuits against Christians are done on the basis of a non-discrimination law. I don't like the law but there it is and if it's to be challenged should be done on a rational basis. And I would guess part of their agenda is not to be screamed at as perverted sinners going to hell.

[fj1200]

An idiot mayor that wants her agenda to abrogate the 1st amendment. You are seriously OK with that?

You should seriously brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

[PixieStix]

You should seriously brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

Is that how you avoid answering questions?

Again, are you ok with the mayors agenda? Which is... at the very least, to violate the first amendment rights, at least where Christians are concerned

[fj1200]

Is that how you avoid answering questions?

Again, are you ok with the mayors agenda? Which is... at the very least, to violate the first amendment rights, at least where Christians are concerned

No, it's how I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills because I said nothing of the sort. How you get I'm OK with the mayor's agenda by referring to her as "idiot mayor" is beyond me.

[PixieStix]

No, it's how I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills because I said nothing of the sort. How you get I'm OK with the mayor's agenda by referring to her as "idiot mayor" is beyond me.


And "I" did not say you did. I asked a simple question.

[fj1200]

And "I" did not say you did. I asked a simple question.

:facepalm99:


You are seriously OK with that?

A simple question based on an ignorant premise.

[PixieStix]

It's ok, I will not force you to answer a question, that you have a problem answering.

[fj1200]

It's ok, I will not force you to answer a question, that you have a problem answering.

:laugh: OK, I'll bail you out. No, I do not support the mayor and her subpoena. Only the ignorant would have inferred that I did.

[jimnyc]

Also, I can see where this goes. First it's gay marriage. Now they will try to claim discrimination on various levels and then next it will be demands of being allowed to be married at the altar of a Catholic Church.

[PixieStix]

:laugh: OK, I'll bail you out. No, I do not support the mayor and her subpoena. Only the ignorant would have inferred that I did.

Thank you for the bail out. :laugh2:

I am new here, so I am trying to figure out some people's politics, whether they are left leaning or right.

[fj1200]

Thank you for the bail out. :laugh2:

I am new here, so I am trying to figure out some people's politics, whether they are left leaning or right.

That's OK, I'm here to help. :) Just be careful of those who may lead you astray. ;)

[PixieStix]

That's OK, I'm here to help. :) Just be careful of those who may lead you astray. ;)

I do not get "lead". I mostly lead

But thanks for the advice dear

[fj1200]

I do not get "lead". I mostly lead

But thanks for the advice dear

:thumb:

[jimnyc]

Thank you for the bail out. :laugh2:

I am new here, so I am trying to figure out some people's politics, whether they are left leaning or right.

FJ is a flaming liberal heathen. He's shifty too, so don't let him convince you otherwise!

[Gaffer]

Thank you for the bail out. :laugh2:

I am new here, so I am trying to figure out some people's politics, whether they are left leaning or right.

He's neither, he's a contrarian. He'll take the opposite view just for the sake of the argument. When he can't do that it's definition time. Oh and he doesn't like rants. :laugh:

[fj1200]

FJ is a flaming liberal heathen. He's shifty too, so don't let him convince you otherwise!

Shh, don't mess with my agenda dude.

:poke:

[PixieStix]

FJ is a flaming liberal heathen. He's shifty too, so don't let him convince you otherwise!

I figured that out when he FJ decided to attack my reading skills instead of answering my question.

I was being facetious. :laugh:

I want a list of flaming liberals on this forum :coffee:

[PixieStix]

He's neither, he's a contrarian. He'll take the opposite view just for the sake of the argument. When he can't do that it's definition time. Oh and he doesn't like rants. :laugh:

Oh I am gonna have to go on a rant soon,........

[fj1200]

He's neither, he's a contrarian. He'll take the opposite view just for the sake of the argument. When he can't do that it's definition time. Oh and he doesn't like rants. :laugh:

Hey, that's usually not true. :embarrassed:

[fj1200]

I figured that out when he FJ decided to attack my reading skills instead of answering my question.

I was being facetious. :laugh:

I want a list of flaming liberals on this forum :coffee:

Well, that depends on who you ask. :scared:

And I didn't even question your use of facetious. :laugh:

[PixieStix]

Well, that depends on who you ask. :scared:

I just need to sit back and watch. I have mostly done that. I knew you were a flaming liberal sometime ago. :coffee:

[Gunny]

Looks like "butch" is angry that she wasn't accepted, and now will try to get a little retaliation. I would write all kinds of nasty things about butch and her lifestyle. What is she going to do next? Sue them for discussing their religious beliefs while in church? That's now somehow "discrimination"? This is what happens when you let nitwits run the show.

And then this...



So not allowing a man to use the women's restroom is discrimination?

Yes. That's EXACTLY where she's going. Houston anti-discrimination ordnance is a violation of the 1st Amendment to begin with. Demanding prepared sermons prior to them even being preached is bullshit, and also a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Churches, like everything else that exists, are discriminatory. Selectively defining "discrimination" to suit a political agenda is in and of itself discrimination. This is not only an attack on our so-called "inalienable" Rights, but it's an attack on religion itself. Churches are exclusive by nature. Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, et al.

It's all bullshit, but Houston is about one of the worst bastions of leftwingnutism in this state. A total embarrassment to the rest of us.

[Gunny]

Well, so far it's just an "idiot mayor" thread. :poke:

Nah. It's an attack on the Constitution thread.

[Gunny]

I don't think that's true here. The city issuing subpoenas is different than one issued by a court. I think the result here will be nil and chalked up to an idiot mayor.



The act is done by whack job lefties and should be shut down fast. And the lawsuits against Christians are done on the basis of a non-discrimination law. I don't like the law but there it is and if it's to be challenged should be done on a rational basis. And I would guess part of their agenda is not to be screamed at as perverted sinners going to hell.

Again, it is a violation and multi-pronged attack on the 1st Amendment. The city ordnance AND the lawsuit.

[Gunny]

Also, I can see where this goes. First it's gay marriage. Now they will try to claim discrimination on various levels and then next it will be demands of being allowed to be married at the altar of a Catholic Church.

Hell, I said that when all this gay marriage crap started 10 years ago. That it would end in the state intrusion on religion. No "slippery slope" though, right?

[revelarts]

The act is done by whack job lefties and should be shut down fast. And the lawsuits against Christians are done on the basis of a non-discrimination law. I don't like the law but there it is and if it's to be challenged should be done on a rational basis.

the point is they are of a piece ALL anti-Christian FJ.
As far as rational basis go, well people have been against immoral/ungodly acts because they are IMMORAL and ungodly. Is that rational enough for some? No? well then how about because homosexual acts spread more disease? rational enough? no? How about because it's against nature? rational enough? no?
It seems there's no rational that homosexual supporters recognize except for "they like it" therefore everyone MUST support it and never speak ill against it.

Those who "love" dogs can use that SAME "rational".
while I can use all the others above against it. we'll see to how much avail when it comes up.

...And I would guess part of their agenda is not to be screamed at as perverted sinners going to hell.
So you admit that that part of their agenda is they want to tell people ---with the force of law--- to STHU.

And BTW most Christians don't scream.
Also the Bible will still say they are sinners going to Hell unless they turn from their ways and embrace Christ no matter WHAT laws they try so their agenda is futile.

[Gunny]

the point is they are of a piece ALL anti-Christian FJ.

Also the Bible will still say they are sinners going to Hell unless they turn from their ways and embrace Christ no matter WHAT laws they try so their agenda is futile.

It's not futile if they stop you from preaching it.

[DLT]

The new lesbian mayor of Houston TX is suing and demanding to see all sermons and speeches of preachers in Houston that deal with homosexuality, gender identity, or that mention her. If this idiot is successful we will be just another step closer to becoming the modern equivalent of the failed socialist/Marxist countries of the 20th century.



That's what you get when you elect DemocRats to office. And the Rats have taken over most large city governments. Remember....it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes. Houston has had nothing but leftist Democrat mayors for as long as I can remember.

[BoogyMan]

I don't think that's true here. The city issuing subpoenas is different than one issued by a court. I think the result here will be nil and chalked up to an idiot mayor.

You are wrong.


Subpoena: N - a writ issued by court authority to compel the attendance of a witness at a judicial proceeding; disobedience may be punishable as a contempt of court (http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subpoena#word=subpoena%20ad%20testificandum).

This is an issue of liberty and the abrogation of the 1st amendment. It is sad that you cannot see that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It is a destroy the 1st amendment thread. The "idiot mayor" was able to procure subpoenas for this. That means the legal infrastructure allowed her inquest to happen.

She should be in jail right now... or some other means of justice delivered to her IMHO..
HER ACTIONS TOTALLY TRASH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION,
ESPECIALLY FREEDOM OF POLITICAL SPEECH.

SHE IS CONDUCTING AN ATTACK UPON BOTH THOSE FREEDOMS AND HAS GOTTEN LAW OFFICIALS/JUDGES TO GO ALONG WITH IT.

She desperately needs to be dealt with in no uncertain terms IMHO.

Check and see how many mosques she has sought to attack this way, answer is zero!!!!
The dem/islam alliance in full play... Like I predicted over 3 years ago.. --TYR

[Gaffer]

Those churches need to fight her with everything they have and when she's up for reelection they should go all out to support her opponent. If they are that threatening to her they must have a lot of sway in their community.

[Gunny]

Those churches need to fight her with everything they have and when she's up for reelection they should go all out to support her opponent. If they are that threatening to her they must have a lot of sway in their community.

Right, but they are like the right in this country in general voting. Lutherans won't vote for a Baptist, Catholics won't vote for a Presbyterian, etc. They can't see the big picture. They're so busy with their individual ideology.

They can't see this is an attack on their 1st Amendment Rights to freedom of religion for ALL.

As a force, the right could easily put the left in check. Too busy squabbling among ourselves. Divide and conquer. It works.

[revelarts]

Also, I can see where this goes. First it's gay marriage. Now they will try to claim discrimination on various levels and then next it will be demands of being allowed to be married at the altar of a Catholic Church.


Hell, I said that when all this gay marriage crap started 10 years ago. That it would end in the state intrusion on religion. No "slippery slope" though, right?

so here we go...

Gay dads campaign for church wedding (From Chelmsford Weekly News) (http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.uk/news/10617202.Gay_dads_campaign_for_church_wedding/)

Millionaire Gay Couple Sues to Force Church Wedding (http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding)

Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
In fresh comments published by the Chelmsford Weekly News in the U.K. today, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said legal action had started.
“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples," he said.
“We feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.
“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”
Earlier this month, Drewitt-Barlow said he and his civil partner, Tony, would go to court to force gay weddings on churches.
He said at the time, “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.
“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us.”
He added, “It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.
“As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”
A government bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.K. cleared Parliament earlier this year, and the first same-sex weddings are expected in 2014
The legislation allows churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, and it specifically protects the Church of England.
However, top human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill says protection for the Anglican Church is “eminently challengeable” in court.
A copy of O’Neill’s legal advice was sent to the prime minister in January, but Mr. Cameron nevertheless proceeded with the legislation. but that's in England, it will never happen here...

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gif


It's not futile if they stop you from preaching it.

It won't take it from the book is my main point.
But i expect some people have stopped preaching about it already, just as they don't preach on adultery being sin as much, or having children out of wedlock , or abortion or against women preachers.
But they'll always be some preachers and Christians who will never shut-up despite the social or legal pressures.

[Gunny]

so here we go...
but that's in England, it will never happen here...

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gif



It won't take it from the book is my main point.
But i expect some people have stopped preaching about it already, just as they don't preach on adultery being sin as much, or having children out of wedlock , or abortion or against women preachers.
But they'll always be some preachers and Christians who will never shut-up despite the social or legal pressures.

You don't really expect me to read all that? Slow learner ...

[Gunny]

so here we go...
but that's in England, it will never happen here...

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gifhttp://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/rolleye0011.gif



It won't take it from the book is my main point.
But i expect some people have stopped preaching about it already, just as they don't preach on adultery being sin as much, or having children out of wedlock , or abortion or against women preachers.
But they'll always be some preachers and Christians who will never shut-up despite the social or legal pressures.

Good point. There are STILL some NAZI's and white supremists still "preaching". But the left, along with the media and the government have made their 1st Amendment rights less than others. But you can be a leftwinger, especially a Jewish one, and hate on them all you want. Jews are the biggest bunch of one-sided conservatives in this country. But they always vote Democrat. Go figure.

It's about selective reasoning.

[fj1200]

Yes. That's EXACTLY where she's going. Houston anti-discrimination ordnance is a violation of the 1st Amendment to begin with. Demanding prepared sermons prior to them even being preached is bullshit, and also a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I won't argue her infringing 1A but I think the non-discrimination is a 14A violation. A taking of property without compensation not that I expect that argument to go anywhere.


Nah. It's an attack on the Constitution thread.

Meh, idiots attack the Constitution every day. I expect her to be slapped down and that right quick.

[fj1200]

You are wrong.

Not so fast; it's a city issued subpoena. Not a court issued one.


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

I could be wrong, I just don't think I am.


This is an issue of liberty and the abrogation of the 1st amendment. It is sad that you cannot see that.

Where did I disagree that it wasn't? :dunno:

[Jeff]

Well, that depends on who you ask. :scared:

And I didn't even question your use of facetious. :laugh:

OK as long as you are asking, yup he is a Liberal :laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

the point is they are of a piece ALL anti-Christian FJ.
As far as rational basis go, well people have been against immoral/ungodly acts because they are IMMORAL and ungodly. Is that rational enough for some? No? well then how about because homosexual acts spread more disease? rational enough? no? How about because it's against nature? rational enough? no?
It seems there's no rational that homosexual supporters recognize except for "they like it" therefore everyone MUST support it and never speak ill against it.

Those who "love" dogs can use that SAME "rational".
while I can use all the others above against it. we'll see to how much avail when it comes up.

Point of order, Christians don't get to be the one to write the laws and use Christianity as the basis for laws. The rational basis is that marriage is now a Federal/State based definition. Christians were all hunky dory with marriage being a legal definition but are now behind the gun when the Equal Protection clause mandates that State defined relationships will extend to those that they don't like. You can't have it both ways.

And what of all those Christians who are gay? But I'll take your post as case in point. You didn't start out by stating any argument about nature or disease, you started out with "ALL anti-Christian."


So you admit that that part of their agenda is they want to tell people ---with the force of law--- to STHU.

And BTW most Christians don't scream.
Also the Bible will still say they are sinners going to Hell unless they turn from their ways and embrace Christ no matter WHAT laws they try so their agenda is futile.

EVERY little interest group has at least a faction that wishes to use the force of law to tell people to STHU. You want to use state legislation for gays to STHU when they want the same marriage privilege that you have. Christians don't have to scream; we're the majority. But I'm pretty sure I've seen Christians scream at abortion providers.

[fj1200]

That's what you get when you elect DemocRats to office. And the Rats have taken over most large city governments. Remember....it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes. Houston has had nothing but leftist Democrat mayors for as long as I can remember.

:laugh: Do you really think that leftist Democrats have been winning the mayorship for as "long as you can remember" because they "count the votes"?

[fj1200]

HOUSTON MAYOR BACKS OFF FROM SUBPOENAS TO PASTORS (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/10/15/BREAKING-Houston-Mayor-Backs-Off-From-Subpoenas-to-Pastors)

As reported by KTRH (http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/houston-backtracks-on-church-subpoenas-12867545) Mayor Parker admitted that the subpoenas were too broad, and that the pastors' sermons should not have been included. "It’s not about what did you preach on last Sunday," she said. "It should have been clarified, it will be clarified." City Attorney David Feldman had an odd admission of his own: that he had not reviewed the subpoenas before they were issued. "When I looked at it I felt it was overly broad, I would not have worded it that way myself," said Feldman. "It's unfortunate that it has been construed as some effort to infringe upon religious liberty."
City officials told KTRH that they would narrow the scope of the subpoenas, but it is not clear how they will address the other concerns voiced by the pastors (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/10/15/Religious-Liberty-Under-Attack-as-Houston-Subpoenas-Church-Sermons) regarding their free speech and religious liberty issues with the rest of the items requested by the subpoena.

[revelarts]

Point of order, Christians don't get to be the one to write the laws and use Christianity as the basis for laws. The rational basis is that marriage is now a Federal/State based definition. Christians were all hunky dory with marriage being a legal definition but are now behind the gun when the Equal Protection clause mandates that State defined relationships will extend to those that they don't like. You can't have it both ways.
point of order? more like change the question.
Well look, if it's a federal or state definition then ANYTHING goes FJ, it doesn't matter WHERE it comes from. as long as it makes it into LAW.

What you just did is not a point of order you just changed your argument.
1st you asked for Rational
now you claim "it's the new law" and it should never be based again in christian ideals. Even though I gave you christian and practical rationals.

FJ you can't have it both ways and claim that the Law is the law --becasue it is--, but christian strait people can't have a say in making it, but "christian" homosexuals can.

Morals are the basis for all laws.
Laws define punishments for RIGHT and WRONG behavior.
Those ideas come from somewhere.
Marriage has been defined around the world in Christian and Non Christian cultures as one man one woman. This has been the majority view and practice for 1000s of years.

you can't honestly claim that it's ONLY a christian view that has no place in law because of it's religious nature. It's been the practice of human kind since basically forever.

The new laws are wrong and should be changed. I gave you rational. How about staying on track with that. Just saying "well it's law now deal with it" does not make it right.

("other foot"? sooo when has a strait married couple ever sued a homosexual florist for refusing on personal standards not to provided flowers? )



EVERY little interest group has at least a faction that wishes to use the force of law to tell people to STHU. You want to use state legislation for gays to STHU when they want the same marriage privilege that you have.
uhh, no I don't want them to STHU by law FJ.
I want them to LOOSE in the legislator, to LOOSE in court.
They can speak all they want and they do. and other speak for them to while they condemn as bigots those who appose them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

HOUSTON MAYOR BACKS OFF FROM SUBPOENAS TO PASTORS (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/10/15/BREAKING-Houston-Mayor-Backs-Off-From-Subpoenas-to-Pastors)


NARROW THE SCOPE....... :rofl1:


EAT LESS SHAT , MAKES IT ALL BETTER, RIGHT?????

She should be ran out of town on a damn rail IMHO.. -TYR

[fj1200]

NARROW THE SCOPE...

That's just political speak for "oh crap." I'd be surprised if this pops back up on any level of scope. The pastors should submit a FOIA request to find the origin of this mess.

[fj1200]

point of order? more like change the question.
Well look, if it's a federal or state definition then ANYTHING goes FJ, it doesn't matter WHERE it comes from. as long as it makes it into LAW.

What you just did is not a point of order you just changed your argument.
1st you asked for Rational
now you claim "it's the new law" and it should never be based again in christian ideals. Even though I gave you christian and practical rationals.

FJ you can't have it both ways and claim that the Law is the law --becasue it is--, but christian strait people can't have a say in making it, but "christian" homosexuals can.

Morals are the basis for all laws.
Laws define punishments for RIGHT and WRONG behavior.
Those ideas come from somewhere.
Marriage has been defined around the world in Christian and Non Christian cultures as one man one woman. This has been the majority view and practice for 1000s of years.

you can't honestly claim that it's ONLY a christian view that has no place in law because of it's religious nature. It's been the practice of human kind since basically forever.

The new laws are wrong and should be changed. I gave you rational. How about staying on track with that. Just saying "well it's law now deal with it" does not make it right.

("other foot"? sooo when has a strait married couple ever sued a homosexual florist for refusing on personal standards not to provided flowers? )

How did I change my argument? My argument has long been that the State shouldn't be making legislation based on interpersonal relationships. If that were the current basis for marriage then most of the argument goes away. Christians could practice marriage the way they choose and so could others. Besides, I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into the whole "what marriage has been" argument because love based marriage is a modern invention. My position isn't "deal with it," my position is that it's up to those who insist on traditional marriage to prove their point.

"other foot" When has a homosexual florist refused to provide flowers?


uhh, no I don't want them to STHU by law FJ.
I want them to LOOSE in the legislator, to LOOSE in court.
They can speak all they want and they do. and other speak for them to while they condemn as bigots those who appose them.

I would suggest your, and other's, words say otherwise. Nevertheless they're not going to lose in the legislature or the courts. Also, it would be helpful if some who oppose them didn't sound like bigots.

[Gunny]

I won't argue her infringing 1A but I think the non-discrimination is a 14A violation. A taking of property without compensation not that I expect that argument to go anywhere.



Meh, idiots attack the Constitution every day. I expect her to be slapped down and that right quick.

Explain. Who is taking property?

[Gunny]

That's just political speak for "oh crap." I'd be surprised if this pops back up on any level of scope. The pastors should submit a FOIA request to find the origin of this mess.

REAL smart her pulling this crap right before early voting begins in Texas. Want to bet there was some pressure from "above" that made her tuck in her tail for the moment? ;)

[Gunny]

How did I change my argument? My argument has long been that the State shouldn't be making legislation based on interpersonal relationships. If that were the current basis for marriage then most of the argument goes away. Christians could practice marriage the way they choose and so could others. Besides, I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into the whole "what marriage has been" argument because love based marriage is a modern invention. My position isn't "deal with it," my position is that it's up to those who insist on traditional marriage to prove their point.

"other foot" When has a homosexual florist refused to provide flowers?



I would suggest your, and other's, words say otherwise. Nevertheless they're not going to lose in the legislature or the courts. Also, it would be helpful if some who oppose them didn't sound like bigots.

The state wants its licensing fees, that's why. They just found a way to make money off of a religious institution. The state allows the churches to perform the ceremonies and the preachers to sign the certificate out of convenience to the state.

It IS however, an intrusion of the state on the church.

[fj1200]

Explain. Who is taking property?

I consider it a taking by forcing individuals to service a market that they don't feel compelled to service. I may not agree with them but that should be their right.


REAL smart her pulling this crap right before early voting begins in Texas. Want to bet there was some pressure from "above" that made her tuck in her tail for the moment? ;)

I assume that was sarcasm because she just riled up some folks. And I don't think pressure was necessary to make her tuck tail here but I really want to know who the idiots were behind this and what the heck they were thinking.


The state wants its licensing fees, that's why. They just found a way to make money off of a religious institution. The state allows the churches to perform the ceremonies and the preachers to sign the certificate out of convenience to the state.

It IS however, an intrusion of the state on the church.

Licensing fees I would guess are pretty much nil. The state just likes to stick its nose in business where it doesn't belong. 1100 references to marriage in the Federal code is more than just licensing fees, it's laws and regulations that provide benefit from marriage.

It doesn't sound like we disagree too much on what the state's involvement should be based on your last sentence.

[BoogyMan]

Not so fast; it's a city issued subpoena. Not a court issued one.

ALL subpoenas have the weight of a court behind them, that is why compelled attendance works.

[Gunny]

ALL subpoenas have the weight of a court behind them, that is why compelled attendance works.

The city of Houston is a branch of the judiciary? I'd tell them to f- off. Take me to court.

[BoogyMan]

The city of Houston is a branch of the judiciary? I'd tell them to f- off. Take me to court.

Don't answer your subpoena and see where you wind up! :)

[Gunny]

Don't answer your subpoena and see where you wind up! :)

Wherever I want. The mayor does not have the authority of the court. That's why I bothered to go back and check out the link.

Where I'll wind up is at the nice end of a suit for false arrest. But I'll do it right and sue through the court. Then the mayor can answers ITS subpoena.

[BoogyMan]

Wherever I want. The mayor does not have the authority of the court. That's why I bothered to go back and check out the link.

Where I'll wind up is at the nice end of a suit for false arrest. But I'll do it right and sue through the court. Then the mayor can answers ITS subpoena.

Where do you think the city went for the subpoena?

http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/what-is-a-subpoena.html

[Gunny]

Where do you think the city went for the subpoena?

http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/what-is-a-subpoena.html

That is not what the article states. However, I can sit there all day and invoke my 5th Amendment Right. Then make all the comments to the media I want to. ;)

[BoogyMan]

That is not what the article states. However, I can sit there all day and invoke my 5th Amendment Right. Then make all the comments to the media I want to. ;)

And you still will not be right about where subpoenas come from. :lol:

[tailfins]

The Houston Mayor is a complete political moron. Attorney General and Governor Candidate Greg Abbott gets to ride to the rescue, just before the election.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4880


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.”


I wonder if Rick Perry and Greg Abbott can immediately pardon any action taken against the pastors.

[fj1200]

ALL subpoenas have the weight of a court behind them, that is why compelled attendance works.

I'm aware of that. Nevertheless here is the answer. The city apparently didn't just start issuing subpoenas, the subpoena was sent due to a lawsuit filed against the city and the mayor in response to the HERO ordinance.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/houston.asp

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf

[BoogyMan]

I'm aware of that. Nevertheless here is the answer. The city apparently didn't just start issuing subpoenas, the subpoena was sent due to a lawsuit filed against the city and the mayor in response to the HERO ordinance.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/houston.asp

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf

So what was your contention with the subpoena's in the first place. I was right from the start. :coffee:

[fj1200]

So what was your contention with the subpoena's in the first place. I was right from the start. :coffee:

That no one researched it and knew its origin.

[red state]

Jim, with the way the Catholic church is changing with the political winds, I don't think they'll be FORCED to perform marriages.....I think they'll gladly do it. What will happen is the Catholic church will have a major split (as did the Methodists when they started going all liberal).

________________________________________________


As for the comment someone made about homosexuals stopping their perversions with homosexual marriage; I've stated for years that they will pervert marriage with the liberal mind-set of "anything goes/if it feels good do it". Of course, they'll always say that their will never be homosexuals marrying young boys or girls or animals or several males/females (be the males/females human or animal) cuz law requires CONSENT but I say that they WILL go after consent laws next and actually have if one cares to look into the ape and dolphin thing from just a few years ago. PLUS, we see a growing muSLUM population that will eventually (as with liberal sections of TX) WILL make laws once they are in the State Capital or DC. The same thing that happened with liberal control will happen with iSLUM control.

_________________________________________________


Now for the separation of church and state.......it was never meant to exclude religion from our Nation's law/decision making. It was to exclude any one denomination that the CHRISTIAN religion established at our Founding. Tyr is spot on.....with the muSLUM 'masks' set up in New Orleans and other liberal areas ready to welcome them (as Houston seems to welcome anything but Christianity), I'm sure Mayor "BUTCH" had NEVER an inkling to take papers out on the muSLUMs who where preaching against the perversions of homosexuality.

_____________________________________________

In closing, it is by design that THEY interpret the Constitution as THEY do (for instance: Freedom FROM religion when is really freedom OF religion). The double standards are most always directed negatively toward all that is GOOD, Christian and American....which is why I am no longer polite or even try to be politically correct because we should be NEITHER respectful or obliging to our enemy. Make no bones about it......the LEFT is America's enemy and they will either be stopped or America WILL fall. Perhaps we will see which will be true come Nov as well as 2016. Last stop.....ALL ABOARD the train of prosperity or.....the train of despair!!!!

[BoogyMan]

That no one researched it and knew its origin.

Egads, do you ALWAYS make these assumptions? It was ALWAYS the outcome of that suit. You just finding that out doesn't mean that those of us who cared enough to research didn't know. Egads.....

[fj1200]

Egads, do you ALWAYS make these assumptions? It was ALWAYS the outcome of that suit. You just finding that out doesn't mean that those of us who cared enough to research didn't know. Egads.....

My bad, I do tend to presume on occasion. If someone linked to that suit then I completely missed it.

And there it was:


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

:eek:

[Gunny]

And you still will not be right about where subpoenas come from. :lol:

No? I'd say you're wrong.

Subpoena has a definition. So does summons. Try looking them up.

Either way, the mayor can kiss my ass. I'm protected by the Constitution. She's got only her agenda to fall back on. The AG squared her ass away on that.

Want to try again? I'm always willing to give lessons in "you're fucking wrong".