Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They lied all the time when helping with the underground railroad, hiding people during the holocaust and other abuses by the state. They also broke many laws during the civil rights movement. What bad people.
If this were the Bush administration subpeoning black churches after the 2004 election, you'd be in full meltdown.
Anyone not finding this to be a horrifically scary over-reach is out to lunch.
Do not even attempt to compare what those people are standing for and the struggle to help blacks or save Jews, they are not even in the same ballpark so save your apples and oranges comparison it does not fly.
Why would I do that? What would he subpoena them for? You do ASSUME a lot don't ya, I voted for Bush, enjoy your crow.
Anyone claiming this violates their rights has no idea what ones rights actually are.
Yes, I already posted a link showing that residency of the signature gatherers was an issue, and also posted a link of the mayor's aide saying that electioneering is the issue. I also noted the discrepancy, and wondered what the sermon transcripts had to do with the residency issue, and whether there might not be two legal fights occurring at the same time.
You are right, these latest statements do not reflect a concern over the place of the signature gathering, contrary to what someone earlier posted about the Texas election code.
The Mayor and her ambulance chaser keep changing their story - I can't wait til this gets to court!
(I also checked Houston's charter - nowhere does it state the "gatherers" must be residents of Houston)
So I'm back to being puzzled again. I will say that if signature-gatherer residency is the legal issue, rather than a call to church members to take specific action, then it is hard to see why the city would want sermon transcripts.
Edited to add -
But here's a quote by a policy aide to the mayor -
“The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” Evans said in her statement. “This included encouraging congregation members to sign petitions and help gather signatures for equal rights ordinance foes. The issue is whether they were speaking from the pulpit for the purpose of politics. If so, it is not protected speech.”
Which brings us back to the idea that the reason for the subpoenas is electioneering, in which case the transcripts are relevant.
It would not be unusual for more than one legal argument to be waged at the same time regarding a controversy. Maybe that is what is going on here?
Further addition -
I think the aide's use of the term "protected speech" is technically incorrect, but her meaning is clear, and correct - nonprofits are not allowed to electioneer.
Concerning this issue, in the Brief filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, they cite legal precedence against the Mayor's request to obtain sermons or speeches. The link to the pdf file, for the full brief, is found in the 7th paragraph of the article cited below.
12. The TWELFTH Request – All Sermons and Speeches Related to ERO and Other Topics – Should be Quashed.
The Twelfth Request for Production seeks “[a]ll speeches, presentations, or sermons related to” ERO, “the [ERO] Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.” But the content of sermons, presentations, and speeches proponents of referendum petitions make or give, if any, is not one of the criteria the Charter specifies for certifying referendum petitions. Neither the City Secretary nor any other official is directed by the Charter to examine referendum petition proponents’ “speeches, presentations, or sermons” before certifying the signatures on referendum petitions and declaring the petitions valid and legally binding. This request is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It should be quashed.
Additionally, an evaluation of the content of pastors’ sermons and other religious presentations could not be a criteria for the acceptance of a referendum petition without violating the First Amendment. “The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.” Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963). Significantly, the “government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities[.]” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). Rather, the government—including the courts—is not allowed by the Constitution “to approve, disapprove, classify, regulate, or in any manner control sermons delivered at religious meetings.” Fowler v. State of R.I., 345 U.S. 67, 70 (1953). The City of Houston is thus constitutionally forbidden from creating a religious test to determine who may submit a referendum petition, or from making the contents of a pastor’s sermons a criteria for whether his or her petition is capable of being certified as legally binding."
The Mayor and her ambulance chaser keep changing their story - I can't wait til this gets to court!
(I also checked Houston's charter - nowhere does it state the "gatherers" must be residents of Houston)
From the link I posted -
"City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to send the issue to the ballot, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Before Russell had checked all the signatures, the city attorney's office checked the petition pages to make sure those who gathered the signatures met city charter requirements -- that they were registered Houston voters and signed each page, for instance.
That process disqualified more than half the group's 5,199 pages, leaving opponents roughly 2,000 signatures short of getting a referendum on the November ballot."
"City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to send the issue to the ballot, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Before Russell had checked all the signatures, the city attorney's office checked the petition pages to make sure those who gathered the signatures met city charter requirements -- that they were registered Houston voters and signed each page, for instance.
That process disqualified more than half the group's 5,199 pages, leaving opponents roughly 2,000 signatures short of getting a referendum on the November ballot."
I have no use for homophobes, but this is clear overreach.
Thank you for the reasoned reply. I imagine there are others but I only read the first few pages. Yes there is some intolerance of the way others live but this is not how to go about stopping it.
"City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to send the issue to the ballot, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Before Russell had checked all the signatures, the city attorney's office checked the petition pages to make sure those who gathered the signatures met city charter requirements -- that they were registered Houston voters and signed each page, for instance.
That process disqualified more than half the group's 5,199 pages, leaving opponents roughly 2,000 signatures short of getting a referendum on the November ballot."
I have no use for homophobes, but this is clear overreach.
This isn't really about being homophobic. It simply opens the door for any type of predator entering the women's restroom. Men can generally take care of themselves.
The most logical fix is that if the "pipes" correlate to the gender, use the appropriate bathroom. If a man has a penis, use the men's restroom, and vice versa for a woman. Not too complicated.
"City Secretary Anna Russell initially counted enough signatures to send the issue to the ballot, with about 600 more than the required 17,269 signatures. Before Russell had checked all the signatures, the city attorney's office checked the petition pages to make sure those who gathered the signatures met city charter requirements -- that they were registered Houston voters and signed each page, for instance.
That process disqualified more than half the group's 5,199 pages, leaving opponents roughly 2,000 signatures short of getting a referendum on the November ballot."
This isn't really about being homophobic. It simply opens the door for any type of predator entering the women's restroom. Men can generally take care of themselves.
The most logical fix is that if the "pipes" correlate to the gender, use the appropriate bathroom. If a man has a penis, use the men's restroom, and vice versa for a woman. Not too complicated.
You are correct it has nothing to do with being homophobic because trans-genders are not homosexuals. The issue is if the law were followed when collecting the signatures, it seems they were not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
