- 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 2:10 pm to Vegas Bengal
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:10 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
So the judge can narrow the scope of the subpoena or quash it or do an in camera inspection. That's what happens when you file a motion to quash.
From a technical, legal standpoint you are absolutely correct. There is no denying this is a valid legal tactic by the mayor. Period.
And it reeks of political intimidation. Using the ample legal resources available to her, she is making an overt attempt to suppress the opposition. Rather than letting the issue rest on the merits, she is trying to shape it by silencing those that disagree with her.
Take pride in the Chicago Way. It absolutely disgusts me.
ETA: Just because something is legal does not mean it is either moral or ethical.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 2:14 pm
1
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:12 pm to darkhorse
quote:
You have not answered if they are right.
I don't think they are. The court will decide. I'd argue their position if I was hired to do so, though.
quote:
If you own something, is it private or public?
If I own something, it's private. But, your question has no bearing on speech freely disseminated to others.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:56 pm to FalseProphet
Here is the subpoena as provided by the plantiff:
LINK
The issue is with one word - sermon. That's it. So if the defendant (the city) omitted public sermons from their subpoena, there's no issue. Even though each pastor gives the sermons to the public.
Talk about a mountain out of a grain of sand.
LINK
The issue is with one word - sermon. That's it. So if the defendant (the city) omitted public sermons from their subpoena, there's no issue. Even though each pastor gives the sermons to the public.
Talk about a mountain out of a grain of sand.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 2:59 pm to monceaux
So why did the city include sermons?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:05 pm to the808bass
quote:
So why did the city include sermons?
Could they have instructed their congregants from the pulpit while sermonizing on how to acquire signatures?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:07 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
overt attempt to suppress the opposition. Rather than letting the issue rest on the merits, she is trying to shape it by silencing those that disagree with her.
Putting aside all the legal arguments and just plainly speaking. How would the opposition be silenced by producing their sermons?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:09 pm to cwill
quote:
Could they have instructed their congregants from the pulpit while sermonizing on how to acquire signatures?
Sure and they could have communicated that through 1,000,000 other means. It's a hypothetical with no basis. And the expansiveness of the topics requested demonstrates the issue. It's not about the signatures.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:10 pm to monceaux
quote:
The issue is with one word - sermon. That's it. So if the defendant (the city) omitted public sermons from their subpoena, there's no issue. Even though each pastor gives the sermons to the public.
And the judge can and probably will do so.
quote:If they're not bitching, they're not living.
Talk about a mountain out of a grain of sand.
Which is odd b/c conservatives always say liberals like to play the victim which conservatives wrap themselves in the victim flag on this board each and every day.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:10 pm to cwill
quote:If sermons are subject to governmental review, preachers would be intimidated from freely saying what they want.
How would the opposition be silenced by producing their sermons?
Hell a precedent is already set. Preach something the government doesn't like, and they will demand you tell them about it. You don't see how that quashes and intimidates the free practice of religion?
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:11 pm to cwill
quote:
Putting aside all the legal arguments and just plainly speaking. How would the opposition be silenced by producing their sermons?
It's always fascinating to me when people like you are able to completely ignore what's staring them in the face, and then expect everyone else to do the same.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:12 pm to the808bass
Update: LINK
Sometimes you get what you pay for....
But at least they found their scapegoat
quote:
Amid outrage from religious groups, Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman on Wednesday appeared to back off a subpoena request for the sermons of certain ministers opposed to the city's equal rights ordinance, with Parker calling it overly broad.
The subpoenas, handed down to five pastors and religious leaders last month, came to light this week when attorneys for the group of pastors filed a motion to quash the request. Though Feldman stood behind the subpoena in an interview Tuesday, he and Parker said during the Mayor's weekly press conference Wednesday that the wording was problematic.
Feldman is monitoring the case, he said, but had not seen the subpoena written by outside counsel working pro-bono for the city until this week. Parker said she also did not know about the request until this week.
"There's no question the wording was overly broad," she said. "But I also think there was some misinterpretation on the other side."
The subpoenas drew national attention this week, prompting Christian conservative groups to condemn the request as governmental overreach. U.S. Sen Ted Cruz issued a statement Wednesday, saying Parker "should be ashamed."
"Let me just say that one word in a very long legal document which I know nothing about and would never have read and I'm vilified coast to coast," Parker said. "It's a normal day at the office for me."
Sometimes you get what you pay for....
But at least they found their scapegoat
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:13 pm to genro
quote:
If sermons are subject to governmental review, preachers would be intimidated from freely saying what they want.
Not if the government doesn't physically stop them from saying stuff. Hurr durr.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:14 pm to MSMHater
quote:
Feldman is monitoring the case, he said, but had not seen the subpoena written by outside counsel working pro-bono for the city until this week. Parker said she also did not know about the request until this week.
Lol
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:14 pm to cwill
quote:
How would the opposition be silenced by producing their sermons?
cwill, if you cannot see how this is an attempt to silence the opposition, then I truly cannot help you.
I truly cannot.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:15 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
cwill, if you cannot see how this is an attempt to silence the opposition, then I truly cannot help you.
I truly cannot.
If you cannot see how you're being a drama queen, then I truly cannot help you.
I truly cannot.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:15 pm to the808bass
quote:
Not if the government doesn't physically stop them from saying stuff. Hurr durr.
They will claim anti-homosexuality sermons are either hate speech or political speech and then claim preaching against this goes against their tax exempt status. Let's not be naive. We all know the end game here.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:17 pm to the808bass
quote:
Sure and they could have communicated that through 1,000,000 other means. It's a hypothetical with no basis. And the expansiveness of the topics requested demonstrates the issue. It's not about the signatures.
Discovery is meant to cast a large net. I'm sorry you don't understand that. If the case is about the validity of sigs and the preachers were leading the sig drive then their communications could be relevant to the case. That's just how the civil discovery regime works.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:18 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Vegas Bengal
Thanks for answering the merits of the argument counselor. Well done.
ETA: Take pride in the Chicago Way. Achieve your objective through intimidation rather than persuasion.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:19 pm to genro
quote:
If sermons are subject to governmental review, preachers would be intimidated from freely saying what they want.
So you're saying reading past sermons will intimidate preachers from freely saying what they want....
I hate to break this to you but their sermons are on television. Many of them taped. Remember Rev. Wright? I didn't see any conservatives upset by folks going back and picking apart and cherry picking his sermons. Now all of a sudden it's a horrible thing.
Also, these sermons aren't secret. Anyone can walk into a church and hear them.
quote:Or they can just tivo it.
Hell a precedent is already set. Preach something the government doesn't like, and they will demand you tell them about it.
quote:
You don't see how that quashes and intimidates the free practice of religion?
If it does, then the judge can quash the subpoena.
Which is what we've been telling you for 10 pages.
It's a good thing you didn't go to law school. Your arse wouldn't make it to the second semester.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:20 pm to cwill
I understand that discovery is a wide net cast. The fact they're already distancing themselves from the subpoena shows exactly how dumb a net cast it was.
Page 17 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News