- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:17 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:17 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Nope, just 'purple penguin' bathrooms. 
0
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:19 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
So, every human that goes to a church and subsequently is involved in a lawsuit...obligates the pastor to be party to discovery?
horseshite.
The pastors are part of a coalition that opposes the bill. NOT a coalition that "sued".
JEEBUS
In the end, it's two groups of people flinging shite at each other over the issue of who can use which bathroom. The subpoena is absolutely spiteful and it will either end the lawsuit pretty quickly or, as cwill said, the subpoena itself will be squashed rather abruptly.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:20 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Great. I haven't read it. Have you? So, frivolous lawsuit are bads, fine.
The lawsuit amounts to a spiteful, religious tantrum.
quote:Against someone else, a protected religious organization. This is a basic violation of the first amendment and a concept upon which our country was founded. I find that far worse.
The subpoena is an equally spiteful response
quote:Let's say you sue your city (with an evangelical Christian mayor just for shits and gigs) over an ordinance. To see where you got these wild ideas, they subpoena your favorite atheist thinkers and writers and speechmakers. Would that be right? All good. Tit-for-tat, right? You did something shitty, they did something shitty? They're not trying to silence you, no. All good.
Childish? Yeah, but this isn't a matter of the state trying to silence church dogma by unilaterally seizing sermons as the OP suggests.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:22 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
cwill beat me to it
Don't lament being second place in the race to an incorrect idea.
The story says nothing of the pastors being part of the "coalition" that sued. They are part of a "coalition" that opposes the bill.
Big difference.
as to the gov position here:
frick that and frick them.
The idea that "it will all work itself out" in court when the gov is on one side and church groups is on the other is fricktarded. Assholes with a nearly unlimited amount of resource and (wasted) time simply causing intimidation to this group and future ones that oppose future bills is ridiculous.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:22 pm to the808bass
quote:
And the pastors aren't part of the lawsuit as both you and will have suggested.
And if they cant be linked in anyway, the subpoena should be thrown out rather easily.
If they can be linked in someway, the subpoena merely serves to make the group(s) in question drop the suit.
It will work itself out. No sermons will be turned over, the bathroom law will stand and everyone will move on.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And if they cant be linked in anyway, the subpoena should be thrown out rather easily.
Or the city shouldn't have subpoenaed them in the first place.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:24 pm to genro
quote:
Let's say you sue your city (with an evangelical Christian mayor just for shits and gigs) over an ordinance. To see where you got these wild ideas, they subpoena your favorite atheist thinkers and writers and speechmakers. Would that be right? All good. Tit-for-tat, right? You did something shitty, they did something shitty? They're not trying to silence you, no. All good.
If I was going to be that petty, then I say go for it. Let them try and see if the subpoena holds up. In this instance, it never would just like it wont here if the pastors cant be linked to the suit.
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:24 pm to TexasTiger89
ON a side note about city ordinances, and men using women's bathrooms.
In Europe they had a lot of unisex bathrooms, and they just had real doors on the stalls instead of this pew things.
Seemed to work find.
In Europe they had a lot of unisex bathrooms, and they just had real doors on the stalls instead of this pew things.
Seemed to work find.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:25 pm to the808bass
quote:
Or the city shouldn't have subpoenaed them in the first place.
I hope the mayor, et al, fall into an AIDs fire that has been kindled with ebola logs.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:25 pm to the808bass
quote:
Or the city shouldn't have subpoenaed them in the first place.
Agreed, but the lawsuit shouldn't have been brought in the first place either.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:25 pm to Roger Klarvin
Basically your point is, it's okay that religious freedom was violated because we have religious freedom and that will work it out.
That's uh, quite circular to say the least.
That's uh, quite circular to say the least.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:26 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I hope the mayor, et al, fall into an AIDs fire that has been kindled with ebola logs.
Parker can DIAF for all I care, even most of the democrats here hate her these days.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If they can be linked in someway, the subpoena merely serves to make the group(s) in question drop the suit.
And this does not indicate some degree of political intimidation? They are not parties to the matter in hand. Hence, their sermons are not germane. The mayor is well aware of this and is still going forward with the subpoena during discovery. Pretty obvious what is happening.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Agreed, but the lawsuit shouldn't have been brought in the first place either.
Why?
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:26 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
ON a side note about city ordinances, and men using women's bathrooms.
In Europe they had a lot of unisex bathrooms, and they just had real doors on the stalls instead of this pew things.
Seemed to work find.
BTW, I am not opposed to the bill.
I am opposed to the attempt to muzzle dissent by gov.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:27 pm to TexasTiger89
Absolute insanity.
Something's got to give.
Something's got to give.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:27 pm to genro
quote:
Basically your point is, it's okay that religious freedom was violated because we have religious freedom and that will work it out.
Nobodies religious freedom has been violated. If the pastors are linked to the suit, the subpoena is perfectly legal. If they aren't, it will get thrown out.
Either way there is no violation. The city isnt seizing their sermons on a whim.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:28 pm to conservativewifeymom
quote:
OG? Sorry, still learning the lingo.
Don't worry, I am old too. Had to wait until they posted the pic before I was able to piece it together. Dang youngsters! Stay off my lawn!
Posted on 10/14/14 at 5:29 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Either way there is no violation. The city isnt seizing their sermons on a whim.
You're completely predictable and illogical on all things religious.
Page 4 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News