- 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 3:51 pm to the808bass
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:51 pm to the808bass
quote:
You apparently don't understand the wide net that is cast in discovery. If it was wrong, the judge would stop it. No need to worry about it.
On the one hand you are correct - there's nothing stopping the plaintiffs from asking in discovery about the mayor's personal relationships and it's likely a court would quash those requests. On the other you're just a jackass out of your element.
1
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:53 pm to cwill
You're just feeling a twinge now that maybe subpoenaing everything in discovery could be a violation of privacy and could be a way of intimidating people not involved in the lawsuit and people involved in the lawsuit. Sit still and it will probably pass and you can get back to defending your evolving position.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:54 pm to constant cough
quote:
Liberals used to value the first amendment. When was that?
They only value it when it they are voicing their opinion, not when you are voicing yours.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:55 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
quote:
It relates to the lawsuit about as much as those sermons. That's the point.
You're analogy is very tenuous. But, if they can show relevance, discovery is discovery.
LOL. You're pretty slow. The whole point of my post was that asking for her sex history has no reverence and the only reason to threaten to subpoena such information would be to use it to intimidate and humiliate her. In other words, they'd be doing to her exactly what she's trying to do to them.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:56 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
I appreciate an honest debate, and that is (apparently) what we are having. So, do you honsetly think the intent of the mayor's legal staff is to review sermons to determine if there was some form of crime committed? Or are they sending a message to not oppose the mayor's ballot initiatives? What is the intent of the subpeona? (hint - the mayor and her staff realize now they probably took this a bit too far)
I think they want to take a swing at their opponent - that is a commonplace in discovery. I think the subpoena will be narrowed and "sermons" will be excluded - it appears that won't even have to be litigated. The overall intent of the subpoena will be to discover evidence related to the signature collections as the legitimacy of the signatures is what is in contention. At the end of the day I think this is more of a tempest in a teapot than anything else.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:58 pm to genro
quote:
But religious freedom has specific protection and in fact was the impetus for this country being settled in the first place.
This is where your whole argument falls apart. They aren't intruding or impeding upon any religious freedom, and there is no right to privacy in publicly spoken words.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 3:59 pm to DD44
quote:
LOL. You're pretty slow. The whole point of my post was that asking for her sex history has no reverence and the only reason to threaten to subpoena such information would be to use it to intimidate and humiliate her. In other words, they'd be doing to her exactly what she's trying to do to them.
Except we know the church was involved in the signature process. So, anything related to their involvement is fair game.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:00 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:Truth.
They only value it when it they are voicing their opinion, not when you are voicing yours.
Part of me wished the reverse would happen, just to show these idiots the danger of it. Some fundamentalist firebrand preacher in Kansas subpoena's a gay-friendly church because some gay citizens sued the city.
A small part of me wishes that would happen, just so these hypocrites can understand. But at the end of the day I don't really want that to happen, because I actually value religious freedom more than my petty desire for comeuppance. Or at least if you give me a second or two I'll feel that way.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:00 pm to the808bass
quote:
You're just feeling a twinge now that maybe subpoenaing everything in discovery could be a violation of privacy and could be a way of intimidating people not involved in the lawsuit and people involved in the lawsuit. Sit still and it will probably pass and you can get back to defending your evolving position.
Keep digging, you should get to China soon.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:02 pm to cwill
We both know it's true. It's all good.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:02 pm to FalseProphet
quote:When I mention the history of our country?
This is where your whole argument falls apart.
quote:Double wrong. It's been demonstrated that they are, and that sermons are not public.
They aren't intruding or impeding upon any religious freedom, and there is no right to privacy in publicly spoken words.
Of course, you said anything spoken to a group of people is public, so I have no idea what goes on in that brain of yours.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:03 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Except we know the church was involved in the signature process. So, anything related to their involvement is fair game.
We know that one pastor from one church was involved. I haven't seen anything beyond that for the justification.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:05 pm to genro
I don't understand how you think something spoken to an audience is private and totally exempt from disclosure.
You still haven't cited a single source for that proposition.
You still haven't cited a single source for that proposition.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:08 pm to FalseProphet
I don't have to cite a source for common sense.
This morning I had a devteam meeting. About 15 of us. I spoke. It's not public.
On Friday I'll be doing "Nick at Noon" - a private luncheon with Nick Saban among donors and alumni. He will speak. It's also not public.
This morning I had a devteam meeting. About 15 of us. I spoke. It's not public.
On Friday I'll be doing "Nick at Noon" - a private luncheon with Nick Saban among donors and alumni. He will speak. It's also not public.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:11 pm to genro
quote:
I've seen this a few times. The fact that the gov't has a reason makes it WORSE. If they reviewed things on a whim that would just be weird. They are doing it because of a citizen lawsuit. That's direct intimidation
Does the city have the right to discovery? Yes.
Does the city have the right to discovery of anything that might be valid to the original lawsuit? Yes.
The lawsuit's plaintiffs are 3 men (not the coalition of pastors) who filed their suit based on the coalition's petition drive. If the major issue is the coalition's petition drive, shouldn't the City be allowed to discover what the individual members of the coalition said regarding the topic and petition, how they communicated regarding the petition, and what their public statements were on the matter?
I'm not a Mayor Parker fan - I think she wants to be a star instead of mayor (and she chooses to build bike trails before filling potholes). But the invective here is pure ideology based. Sermons are public - certainly the sermons of the nonparty ministers that were subpoenaed.
Thousands of pages of signatures were invalidated because the coalition couldn't follow the rules of petition signing in Houston; thousands more signatures were invalidated because the person signing was not eligible to vote in Houston. Thousands more were invalidated because the person gathering signatures either wasn't a City resident or didn't sign the petition.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:19 pm to the808bass
quote:
We know that one pastor from one church was involved. I haven't seen anything beyond that for the justification.
The coalition that came together to oppose Mayor Annise Parker’s “Equal Rights Ordinance” is comprised of pastors from every corner of the city and our church members, LINK
The coalition of pastors and citizens who submitted over 55,000 signatures on a referendum petition to repeal Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s “Equal Rights Ordinance” that grants special privileges to sexual behavior and gender confusion have taken their case to the highest court in Texas. LINK
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:21 pm to genro
quote:
About 15 of us. I spoke. It's not public.
You clearly have no clue about expectations of privacy. When you spoke to that group, did you have a reasonable expectation that no other person would ever learn about the contents of that communication?
If you are honest, you will say no. If you say no, then you admit that your speech was to a audience with no expectation of privacy.
The only private, and protected, speech is that to your doctor, your lawyer, your spouse, or in the confessional.
It has nothing to do with the composition of the audience or the nature of the speech.
You're conflating legal terms with your notions.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:22 pm to monceaux
quote:
monceaux
Upvote x 2
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:30 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
When you spoke to that group, did you have a reasonable expectation that no other person would ever learn about the contents of that communication?
You should've said, "Did you have a reasonable expectation that your words would not be subpoena'd by the city government if some of your coworkers sued the city?"
The answer is, of course, yes.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 4:36 pm to monceaux
quote:
The coalition that came together to oppose Mayor Annise Parker’s “Equal Rights Ordinance” is comprised of pastors from every corner of the city and our church members, LINK
So all the pastors participated in what way? You have a direct link to one, what was the direct link of the rest? I'm really asking.
Page 19 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News