- 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 10/15/14 at 1:28 pm to Lg
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:28 pm to Lg
quote:
Who's making up law? So are you telling me that a pastor can't tell his congregation to oppose something that goes against the beliefs of his church?
He can...is that the subject of the subpoenas? Or is it related to the validity of the signatures?
0
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:30 pm to FalseProphet
quote:What are you talking about? Church services do not have to be public events to begin with. They can bar you from the door if they want. Dumbass.
So some public events are private and some are public? I'd love to see authority for that.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:30 pm to cwill
quote:
The lawsuit is over the legitimacy of some signatures and the petition. The churches participated in the signature drives. That being said the coalition and churches would have relevant evidence regarding the signatures. So from there.... A pastor may have been directing his congregants to gather signatures. What if he was directing them to collect signatures from people outside of the Houston city limits? Is that relevant evidence going to the validity of the petition signatures?
Using this logic, there would be nothing which couldn't be subpoenaed from anyone who participated in the signature drive.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:31 pm to genro
quote:
They can bar you from the door if they want. Dumbass.
But that doesn't make it a "privacy" issue, dumbass. Even though it was done before a select group of individuals, it still has no right to privacy, because it's PUBLIC.
You really are ignorant.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:31 pm to cwill
quote:
The lawsuit is over the legitimacy of some signatures and the petition.
quote:
What if he was directing them to collect signatures from people outside of the Houston city limits?
So why the need for the sermons? Seems to me it would be pretty easy to verify by names and addresses alone.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:32 pm to FalseProphet
quote:I don't even.... Do you think there is a law that all church services are public record? WTF man. Yes, if you give a sermon to 10 people in your house of worship, and it turns I was spying on you without knowledge, I violated your right to privacy and I'm going to jail.
Nonetheless, I'd love to see a case where there is a right to privacy when you give a sermon to even 10 people
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:33 pm to the808bass
Which is exactly what they exposed themselves when they decided to file suit.
But you still fail to acknowledge that i can write a subpoena right now to you asking for the production of the shite you took yesterday. Doesn't mean I'll ever get it.
But you still fail to acknowledge that i can write a subpoena right now to you asking for the production of the shite you took yesterday. Doesn't mean I'll ever get it.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:33 pm to the808bass
quote:
Using this logic, there would be nothing which couldn't be subpoenaed from anyone who participated in the signature drive.
The lawsuit is about the validity of the signatures...I would imagine that the parties will be afforded wide latitude in the discovery process.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:34 pm to FalseProphet
quote:What part is public?
Even though it was done before a select group of individuals, it still has no right to privacy, because it's PUBLIC.
You really are ignorant.
The land and building are not publicly owned.
A sermon is not public record.
Religion has a right to exclusivity.
What on earth makes you think it's public?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:38 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Even though it was done before a select group of individuals, it still has no right to privacy, because it's PUBLIC.
A church building is public? You sure?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:38 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
You have a right to exercise your religion free from government intrusion. The allegations of this case are apparently that the church engaged itself in the political process.
An organization can be involved in the political process to the extent that they do not endorse a party or a person.
They have every right to promote what they believe in. They do have access to laws and that included petitioning.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:39 pm to cwill
quote:
The lawsuit is about the validity of the signatures...I would imagine that the parties will be afforded wide latitude in the discovery process.
I'll bet they don't get within a mile of the sermons of these pastors.
You bailed yesterday after not reason the article. You'll bail again.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:40 pm to genro
quote:
What part is public?
The fact that the sermon was delivered to a group of people.
quote:
The land and building are not publicly owned.
That's irrelevant. Seriously, where did you take con law?
quote:
A sermon is not public record.
But it doesn't enjoy a privacy privilege, which is what you have asserted. Here's a good tool, if the members of the congregation can be asked about what the pastor said, it's not private.
quote:
Religion has a right to exclusivity.
Again,. you are wrong. You have the right to freely exercise your religion. I'd love to see the grant of religious exclusivity in the constitution or bill of rights.
quote:
What on earth makes you think it's public?
IT WAS GIVEN TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE. I never said it was public as in an arm of the state public. I said it doesn't enjoy any constitutional protection of privacy.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:41 pm to the808bass
quote:
A church building is public? You sure?
Jesus Christ. I'm talking to idiots. No, the church building is not public. The speech is.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:42 pm to FalseProphet
I'm no lawyer. That's for sure.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:46 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
The fact that the sermon was delivered to a group of people.
Wow.
Just think about that. Anytime anyone says anything to multiple people, it's public record. Wow.
quote:I'm an engineer with a keen interest in history and the constitution. I hate lawyers. Most of them wouldn't understand the actual meaning of the Constitution if it hit them on the head.
That's irrelevant. Seriously, where did you take con law?
quote:Damn it, I need more rotflmao's. I can ask you what your boyfriend said last night. You must tell me now.
But it doesn't enjoy a privacy privilege, which is what you have asserted. Here's a good tool, if the members of the congregation can be asked about what the pastor said, it's not private.
quote:It's pretty well implied. If a religion considers privacy (or anything else whatsoever that doesn't itself violate the constitution) part of their free exercise of religion, then they are free to do so. What "free exercise" is not spelled out anywhere, because it means whatever the frick that particular religion wants it to mean
Again,. you are wrong. You have the right to freely exercise your religion. I'd love to see the grant of religious exclusivity in the constitution or bill of rights.
quote:You're not very bright.
IT WAS GIVEN TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE. I never said it was public as in an arm of the state public. I said it doesn't enjoy any constitutional protection of privacy.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:46 pm to the808bass
quote:
I'll bet they don't get within a mile of the sermons of these pastors.
Maybe not, but I wouldn't be so positive either way as to lay a bet.
quote:
You bailed yesterday after not reason the article. You'll bail again.
I didn't bail. I owned my mistake. And it's pretty lame of you to get sorta boxed in and lash out like a bitch. But I've seen you do it before so I'm not surprised.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:48 pm to FalseProphet
Alliance Defending Freedom law firm says they are protected.
Are they wrong?
quote:
"illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city."
Are they wrong?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:49 pm to darkhorse
quote:WHERE DID THEY GET THEIR CON LAW DEGREE
Alliance Defending Freedom law firm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 1:49 pm to genro
You're keen interest needs a lot of development. And you need to stick to numbers.
Your reference to "the public record" is extremely wrong and misguided. I never said it was "public record," I said it was speech that enjoyed no privilege.
And guess what, asshat, if I the conversation I had with my girlfriend (you were so clever by saying boyfirend though) is relevant to pending litigation, and I get a subpoena, I'm going to have to tell them what was said, because it enjoys no privilege.
It's that simple. Absent doctors, lawyers, spouses, and confessionals (and yes, that's different than a sermon), your speech enjoys no privacy.
Argue until you're blue in the face, but you are wrong at every turn, and it's painfully obvious.
Your reference to "the public record" is extremely wrong and misguided. I never said it was "public record," I said it was speech that enjoyed no privilege.
And guess what, asshat, if I the conversation I had with my girlfriend (you were so clever by saying boyfirend though) is relevant to pending litigation, and I get a subpoena, I'm going to have to tell them what was said, because it enjoys no privilege.
It's that simple. Absent doctors, lawyers, spouses, and confessionals (and yes, that's different than a sermon), your speech enjoys no privacy.
Argue until you're blue in the face, but you are wrong at every turn, and it's painfully obvious.
Page 15 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News