I’ve been busy trying to get caught up on some work before I head out of the country next week – won’t be writing much. But since this discussion broke out on another comment stream, I thought I should put up a forum for discussion of the issue here.
According to the Houston Chronicle, it seems the series of events is (at least loosely) as follows:
1) The Houston city council, led by the mayor, an open lesbian, passed a “non-discrimination” ordinance.
2) Christian groups opposed the ordinance based on some of its provisions and possible consequences. I’ve not read the ordinance and cannot judge whether their opposition was warranted. The key issue seems to be about unisex bathrooms, but again, I’ve only read news reports.
3) A group of Houston citizens gathered 50,000 signatures on a petition to seek a referendum on the ordinance. That is almost 3x the required amount (around 17,000).
4) The council denied the petition claiming irregularities in it. I’m not clear exactly what their beef was with the petition, but they denied it.
5) The community group that had formed to gather signatures and seek the referendum filed a lawsuit to get the denial of the petition reversed.
6) The council issued a subpoena demanding that 5 pastors of prominent churches, which had lent support to the community group that pushed the referendum, submit their sermons that spoke about homosexuality, transgender issues or contained any references to the mayor.
7) These 5 pastors are refusing to comply with that subpoena, from what I have read.
Perspectives
A couple of perspectives, then you guys can discuss this to your heart’s content.
1) Anyone, right-wing, conservative Christian to atheist, and anything in between, ought to be horrified when our government begins interfering in what is preached in a pulpit on Sunday.
2) For those who would say this is all much ado about nothing, ordinances in certain European countries and in Canada have already attempted to limit the right of preachers to confront homosexuality as sin. Both laws failed when the government was unwilling to imprison a preacher for speaking truth. But, suffice it to say that the intolerant left has already demonstrated a willingness to criminalize dissent from its fundamental “tolerance” dogma.
3) There seems to be a clear revenge aspect of this. When the city demands that references to the mayor in sermons be turned over, that says a lot about motives and ought to chill even those who support the ordinance.
4) This seems to be a clear case of governmental bullying of dissent. Again, both liberals and conservatives ought to be offended by this.
To paraphrase something Bart Barber said on Twitter, “I am old enough to remember when liberals supported the First Amendment.”
As is normal, Dr. Russell Moore has spoken well to this issue. I consider the day he was elected to head our ERLC to be one of the best days in recent SBC history.
Houston, We Have a Constitution.
Dr. Jason Allen has added another article.
There have been a lot of news articles on the topic, but these seem to be the facts. At this point, the city of Houston has not commented, since the news of the subpoenas has gone viral.
EDIT – look in the comments for a tweet from the mayor of Houston, in a comment by Brent Hobbs.
In (shocking) breaking news, evidently, Joel Osteen was not among the pastors rallying in opposition to the ordinance!
Also, I watched a video on the Houston Chronicle site. It was clearly slanted to the “HERO” side (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance) but it did not vary from the facts as I have stated them above.
I say give them the sermons and let’s see what happens. What are they going to do? If they do something to the pastors (which they won’t), then they are blessed.
This is not “much ado about nothing” and I understand the concern. But, how should we handle things like this? I say we go on preaching and invite the government to listen to what we say.
Yes, I understand the danger of gradualism here. But, what do we do right now?
I’d say post them on the website as usual but refuse to send in copies as it’s clearly unconstitutional. In effect saying, “It’s fine to listen to what we’re saying, but we won’t be bullied.”
Those are my sentiments. Whose sermons aren’t already public? What church out there is checking membership at the door? I’d hope they came and listened to every word, or listend and/or read everything posted online, especially that the Holy Spirit used my words to bring them to repentance. I’d be glad to show up in court and explain everything to them on the record. Let them put me in prison: I’d have a captive audience.
Exactly.
Brent
I think I like that.
Your comment, Alan, put me in mind of a circumstance from 30 years ago.
The church I served as associate pastor had a member who was a converted mafioso. I never even knew his real name. He got on my father’s tape ministry and had hundreds of sermon tapes.
He was found in Ft. Lauderdale field, the victim of an execution. Evidently, the reason was a conversation he had recorded. So, the poor FBI agents investigating the slaying had to listen to hundreds of hours of my dad’s preaching (and perhaps a few of mine) in an attempt to find the tape in question.
Not sure whether any FBI agents were converted!
Also, if the information is correct, there would be 5 “prominent” pastors involved.
Do you know anyone who is a prominent pastor whose sermons are not available online?
These sermons seem to be already in the public domain. If the mayor wants to find out what is being said, it is easy enough to do so.
There are five people named in ADF’s “Memorandum in Support of Nonparty Pastors’ Amended Motion
To Quash Subpoenas…” They are:
Ms. Magda Hermida and Pastors Hernan Castano, Khan Huynh, Steve Riggle, and David Welch. Evidently Ms. Hermida is not a pastor. I live in Texas (couple hours north of Houston) and have not heard of any of these folks before, but they probably are prominent in the town of Houston itself.
I made the above statement about Ms. Hermida based on the way the memorandum was written. But evidently she is a preacher of some sort. I found a “Magda Hermida Ministries” on the web and Facebook.
On the sermons, sure–assuming that the sermons are available. If I weren’t recording, I wouldn’t have anything to hand over–would that make me in violation of the subpoena?
Yet if you read a copy of the subpoena, they don’t just want sermons. (Assuming the tweeted PDF I saw is accurate)
They want: who was at church to hear them; all communications, including individual emails; the pastors’ resumes…the list is long and ridiculous. It is probably easier to fight the whole subpoena.
And overall: do we really think that a simple acquiescence now won’t result in extended demands? When the next thing Houston wants is a copy before it’s preached, should we just accept that and go on? I think that the answer remains: you want the sermon material, come and listen.
Thanks for the roundup, Dave. Some new details in there I hadn’t heard yet. Didn’t realize they actually had over 50k signatures – even if someone wanted to claim “irregularities”, it would be nearly impossible to argue that 2/3 of the signatures were fake.
I like Jason Allen’s idea of having all the evangelical pastors across the U.S. choose one sermon on sexual identity issues and send them all to the mayor’s office. But on the other hand I fully support the pastors’ under subpoena refusing to comply.
This is my third comment here. I have been asked if I am the son of the other volsfan. I am of no relation or connection.
That said, remember John 15:18 says “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.” (KJV)
We are going to be hated. Persecuted. The world hated and still hates Jesus. They are going to hate us.
It’s disgusting the way the City of Houston is approaching this.
volfan88, hello. Do you live in Tennessee?
David
Honestly, Volfan88, you ought to come up with a different name. Not only is cheering for the Vols questionable, but that name is pretty badly sullied around here already.
No specifics of course. Just general observations.
lol
David
Volfan77
don’t listen to Dave, there are still one or two of us who still like you. 🙂
DL,
Thanks.
David 🙂
Dave,
The city of Houston seemed to suggest such subpoenas were forthcoming back in August. See the document below (specifically pp. 24-26), which is the City’s opposition to the request for a temporary injunction. The City of Houston alleges that the plaintiffs and coalition associates (e.g. pastors who received subpoenas) had engaged in misconduct, election fraud, etc.
Page 26 states: “The full extent of wrongdoing by plaintiffs and their associates will be explores more fully during discovery and a trial on the merits.”
http://lexpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-Response-in-Oppo.pdf
I don’t know enough of the details regarding these allegations to opine on whether the city has overreached – certainly the optics and the framing by the media indicates the city has overreached. But, I don’t see this as an effort of “intimidation” (normally folks don’t forecast their “intimidation” effort months in advance). We should remember that it is the city of Houston that is being sued – the city certainly has the right to defend itself in court and collect the needed information to do so.
If there is a legitimate basis for the claim that these subpoenaed “coalition associates” have engaged in election fraud, their communications would seem quite relevant to the case and fair game for the discovery process. Again, I don’t know if there is a legitimate basis for that claim, but it has been previously alleged in court proceedings.
There also seems to be a sentiment out there that the First Amendment absolutely protects the communications of churches/pastors. That’s not the case. Sometimes requests for church records (which includes communications of pastors) gets squashed; sometimes it doesn’t. The Catholic Church knows this well.
Aaron,
I understand that certain things are subject to subpoena/government review – our church’s finances, pastoral misconduct, etc.
But what a pastor preaches? It seems like we are taking a strong step in the wrong direction there.
An example of City of Houston subpoena request can be found HERE. You can see there what is being requested, even “Your updated resume or curriculum vitae.” The supposed purpose is discovery of information re the lawsuit, but I think the 17 things requested (with all their subpoints) indicates going beyond just looking for information, and at least harassing or annoying these people for daring to fight the mayor & city council on this issue.
I just read an article by Eugene Volokh in the Washington Post. He seems to be fairly dispassionate and presents a legal explanation about why, in certain limited circumstances, a governmental agency might be able to subpoena sermons.
Is it constitutional for a court to enforce a subpoena of ministers’ sermons?
He is, evidently, something of an expert on First Amendment issues and a professor at UCLA law.
The issue here, as I read him, is that the subpoenas are way too broad.
Haven’t read Volokh yet, but I would agree. The purpose of the subpoena is discovery of admissible evidence. I’m not a lawyer but here is a simple way I would put it. If a pastor confessed to breaking the law in a sermon, there would be a legitimate reason to get a tape of that sermon as evidence. So their might be some legitimate reason within the subpoena. But I reading the 17 requests certainly looks like mostly illegitimate stuff.
I suspect the will win the motion to quash — at least having it highly modified to make it specific. It is overreaching.
I would agree with you. It seems overly broad. We also don’t know what the discovery requests looked like from the plaintiffs – some level of annoyance/harassment seems par for the course when there’s a team of lawyers battling it out over a civil suit.
I used to be a regular visitor at Volokh’s website. He is one of the most prominent 1st Amendment scholars in the country, and a libertarian-leaning atheist. I agree with him here. If the City’s concern was that the pastors were encouraging people to commit some type of election fraud, they could have limited the subpoena to communications regarding the petition, referendum, and the HERO bill.
Yes…
“And while sermons are generally not intended to be as confidential as the names of journalists’ sources, there is still good reason to limit demands for the text of sermons when the text is irrelevant and therefore unnecessary to any legal decisionmaking. ***Such demands create a feeling of surveillance that may indeed deter or dampen some kinds of religious speech.*** And while such deterrence or dampening is constitutional when relevant information is subpoenaed (just as it’s constitutional as to subpoenas related to editorial meetings and tenure reviews), it should be avoided and minimized in cases where the subpoenaed information is entirely or largely legally irrelevant.”
@Chris Roberts, this is what everyone else sees that you refuse to see. Join with this other atheist and get on the right side of this.
Taking the narrow view of the specifics of this case (i.e. who’s suing who) is one thing. The broader concern are the lasting effects, or even the unintended consequences, and perhaps case law that arise by an action of the government against the church, as we have here. As to “intimidation,” it would seem that the government has moved beyond that into outright action—the intimidation was communicated previously. This mayor intends to silence the church in furtherance of her sinful and immoral sexual passions. I propose that if her band of servants lift one finger against these pastors, let the Houston jail system collapse by the influx of pastors and Christians who join them in civil disobedience. But, I’m afraid we’re so far removed in America from the first revolution, and our own Civil War, that we can’t fathom ever needing to stare our government in the face to say, “This far, and no further.” God is sovereign, and we have no reason to fear. The battle has been won. This, however, does not give rise or excuse to blatant passivity on the issue of religious freedom.
I like the idea of showing up at the Houston jail and turning myself in for preaching that this ERO is wrong. I don’t want men who feel like women trapped in a man’s body walking into a restroom where my wife is. I may be 200 miles north of Houston but I just might go if it comes to that.
It seems hard to understand why the subpoena would include sermons that cover the topic of homosexuality if the main issue is an accusation of fraud.
The Mayor’s tweet this morning gives no indication that her problem is with fraud, but with churches engaging in political action.
“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?-A”
https://twitter.com/AnniseParker/status/522238662033956866
“If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game. Were instructions given on filling out anti-HERO petition?”
This tweet from the mayor says it all….her intent is to silence and intimate pastors who preach the bible if that teaching dares to collide with her and the Houston town council’s activist governing.
There is a fraud lawsuit brought by her and her cohorts against a petition to repeal HERO that collected well more than enough signatures from constituents.
The lawsuit does not contend that the signatures are fraudulent (that this many people did not sign the petition for a redress of grievances) it only contends that they were recruited….so what?!
Not only does this touch on religious freedom…but speech/political freedom as well….is the city of Houston really contending that people cannot organize (even religious people) to petition the government for redress of grievances?
She is way out of line here.
Can Dave add the ability to upvote posts? Because Tarheel nails it with with one.
I’m confused, is the mayor suing those who gathered the signatures or are those who gathered the signatures suing the city/mayor for disallowing the petition on suspicious grounds?
Clark, I think the facts are as they are presented in the body of the post.
The HERO ordinance passed.
Signatures were gathered.
The signatures were ruled invalid.
The lawsuit was filed by the city group which gathered the signatures.
The city subpoenaed the pastors who were, I suppose, seen to be most active in support of the community group.
The mayor has issued subpoenas but has not filed lawsuits.
The threat seems to be to pursue legal action against the churches/pastors for the inappropriate use of the pulpit for political things.
That seems to be her beef.
yes
Same old stuff different day. Whats new with the Devils tactics? Looks like to me that some folks just don’t get it!! The bible is very clear on the issue at hand and since God has not changed His mind I won’t either. Goes like this: “God said it; Jesus did it; I believe it; that settles it.
Or a slightly different version: God said it, that settles it. 😉
I quickly scanned the HERO act and other documents. It seems there is video of one pastor instructing people how to collect signatures, and their stance is that people knew the rules and deliberately flouted them. I doubt this pastor gave these instructions on a Sunday Morning or typical gathering in place of a sermon. What constitutues a “sermon” to the city? If they called a special meeting on a week night for people interested to discuss is that a sermon? What if it’s held in the sanctuary as it is the biggest/most equipped room? Is that still a sermon? That seems to be a pretty broad request.
Also what makes one “prominent” Dave? Everyone is prominent to someone! Or perhaps some around here are just “infamous” !
I’m not sure of the definition of prominent.
It was the term used in the news reports. I’m guessing it means “megachurch” pastors.
Did you have any perspectives on the HERO act?
Is the concern about bathrooms valid?
Yes, I believe it is. As Luke posts below and as can be seen in the ordinance, the choice of bathroom is based on one’s perceived gender identity and not one’s actual gender.
The Houston City Council passed the ordinance May 28, 2014. According to reports it passed with an amendment removing Section 17-51(b) — which Luke references below. But while this removes the specific wording about bathrooms, it does not mean that cannot be enforced since the ordinance makes it unlawful for “any place of public accommodation…to intentionally discriminate against any person on the basis of any protected characteristic…” The protected characteristics include “gender identity,” which means one own’s gender identification, “although the same may not correspond to the individual’s body or gender assigned at birth.”
The ordinance was scheduled to go into effect in June, but these legal wranglings are holding it up.
This seems to be the pertinent section about bathrooms: Article IV Section 17-51 (b)
UPDATE: BUT THIS WAS ONLY IN THE DRAFT, NOT THE FINAL VOTED ON VERSION. I couldn’t find something about bathrooms specifically in the final version. http://www.houstontx.gov/equal_rights_ordinance.pdf
It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity. It shall be a defense to prosecution for discrimination on the basis of gender identity under this article, however, if the defendant had a good faith belief that the gender or gender identity of the person discriminated against was not consistent with the gender designation of the facility. For purposes of this section, a defendant has a good faith belief if the manner in which the person represented or expressed gender to others (e.g. behavior, clothing, hairstyles, activities, voice or mannerisms) is not consistent with the gender designation of the facility the person attempted to access. Nothing in this section shall require construction of a new bathroom, shower room, or similar facility
But I also saw this part
Sec. 17-54. Exemptions.
This article shall not apply to: (1) Any hotel, motel, restaurant, bar, lounge, nightclub, cabaret, theater, bowling alley, skating rink, golf course, or similar facility operated by a bona fide private club when the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and services of the entity are restricted to the members of such club and their guests and not for the purpose of evading this article; or (2) Any bona fide social, fraternal, educational, civic, or religious organization, or to any private kindergarten, day care center or nursery school, when the profits of such accommodations, advantages, facilities and services, above reasonable and necessary expenses, are solely for the benefit of such organization
As well as this about employment.
shall be unlawful for any employer to intentionally discriminate in employment and employment opportunities on the basis of any protected characteristic. For purposes of this section,
discriminate
includes but is not limited to, any intentional act or demonstration of preference or antipathy in making decisions regarding employment that adversely affect an employee’s pay, status, position, or assignment, including opportunities for overtime pay and advancement, and includes decisions regarding recruitment, job application procedures, referrals for employment, selection and hiring, appointment, compensation, promotions, demotions, transfer, retention, layoffs, recalls, training, educational opportunities, and all forms of discipline, including terminations
But there was no provision saying religious places were exempt from this part.
Those two stood out to me as the notable things. The rest of the article says you can’t discriminate employment, housing, etc. Under employment is also this section, which is pertinent to us I think. I read quickly (skimmed) so I apologize if I missed anything glaring.
To be clear, only the first section about Public accommodation I couldn’t find in final version. The rest of the statements are in that version. The pdf is not searchable by words, so I read quickly. There’s also a prohibition against discrimination in housing, but a section saying religious causes are exempt from that as well.
Employer initially means “50 or more employees”, but on subsequent anniversaries of the bills passing, that is to be lowered to 25, and then to 15 on the second anniversary of it’s passing.
Also this,
It is the policy of the city that all of its residents and persons subject to its jurisdiction shall not be subject to discrimination based on an individual’s sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy
These are the classes that cannot be discrimated against.
“These are the classes that cannot be discriminated against.”
Which brings me to another point….
Why in the world do we have ‘classes’ of people protected by law – it would stand to reason (in my mind) that all people are automatically protected by ANY well written anti discrimination law – right?
Same with hate crime laws….laws against assault, murder, attack, etc… are not sufficient??? …there has to be extra laws?
Ridiculous!
Tarheel, I think you probably know this but the reason for these types of actions of intimidation is to push and agenda, not to assert personal rights.
The goal has never been equality. The goal has always been, normalcy. Until they an get everyone to “say” their lifestyle is normal and healthy, they will keep pressing on.
This is definitely the tail wagging the dog as the numbers of homosexuals are insignificant. The liberal mindset that accepts homosexuality–well that is a different matter.
So, public schools would have these public restrooms and shower rooms, ie, locker rooms, open to anyone who claims to be a different sex? Am I reading that right? Publlc schools would be subject to this law?
If so, wouldn’t that be great? You send your daughter to school, and boys are taking showers with her? Going into the same bathrooms with her? And, can’t you just see some boys dressing like girls, and claiming that their gender is not a boy, all to get that privilege? To be in the girls restrooms and shower rooms?
I would have a hard enough time thinking that my daughter or wife would have to go to a public restroom, whenever a man could be in there.
David seriously smh
Re the petition, I find it highly unlikely that a petition with 3 times the required signatures had enough irregularities to be denied.
I also found interesting the city take on this that pastors cannot engage in politics. The city attorney said, “If someone is speaking from the pulpit and it’s political speech, then it’s not going to be protected.” It has been my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that this has to do with running afoul with the IRS and losing tax exemption. Otherwise, unless they violated the law in some way, it would seem that are on solid ground regarding opposing the city ordinance and regarding this petition.
Another thing about the petition — it was certified by the city secretary, but later declared invalid by the Mayor and City Attorney.
I think we should look into why these laws were adopted with a vote of 11 to 6. First I would like to point out these laws apply to everyone, not just the LGBT community. African Americans were denied entry into some bars because of their skin color. Also the LGBT community was denied access to bathrooms according to the gender they identify with. I certainly can see the major problem with ordinance like this if it were to be adopted. I think this part of the ordinance was stricken, thank God. The LGBT community still can place a law suit against the city to get bathrooms they can identify with.
With my eyes being in bad shape this is how I read the issues. If I’m wrong I’m sure someone will correct me. I do know the city of Houston has some major discrimination problems.
I personally think anyone with any skin color shouldn’t be allowed in bars.
Are you saying that African Americans were denied entrance into bars in 2014, or are you speaking of the past?
The news in this part of Texas has been that the Houston ordinance does allow anyone to go into any restroom that they believe matches their personal gender. HEre is a link to a blog from Houston which encourages preachers to surrender sermons.
http://collingarbarino.com/2014/10/15/subpoenaed-sermons-the-case-for-handing-them-over/
It seems to me Peter didn’t care who heard him preach. Spurgeon didn’t care and published them. Bonhoeffer? Pretty open. I saw inundate them with sermons. But personal, private correspondence? I might go to jail before turning that over.
Clark D
It is likely the lawyers and city govt. officials already have the sermons as It would seem that if these are “mega churches” then actual sermons are posted on the church websites and podcast or perhaps available for purchase….it would seem to me that these are already readily available in the public domain…..no?
It seems pretty clear that they are after more than just sermons….and that the intent is harassment and intimidation.
Clark,
No my friend, it is not an ordinance, it was stricken. I went back and read it again.
Yes that section about bathrooms was in the original draft, but not in the section that was passed. The ordinance that passed contained no words about bathrooms at all.
Oh and the Subpoena text: (did someone post this?) http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSubpoenaRequest.pdf.
The city of Houston sure would have problems getting my sermons. I study well before my sermon and have only three or four little notes with three or four little scriptures marked in my bible. They could never figure out what I preached. When I pull out my markers from the bible the sermon is gone. Ha, Ha.
This issue is about as Baptist as things get…the freedom of religion.
David
Well, my mother-in-law’s maiden name was Riggle; she was from Eastern Kentucky, and her brother, a big six foot four fellow was a veteran from WWII. My impression of those folks named Riggle is that they are tough. In any case, I call your attention to the reality taking place in Houston as a possibility likely to effect every one of us for what we preach. You all will remember, surely, about the Pentecostal Assembly preacher who was sentenced to six months in prison for what he preached from his own pulpit in Sweden in 2003. He only served one month, and it was noted that the action actually violated International Treaties on the matter of religious liberty. The group that runs the whole world intends to have an open society, a wide-open society, where anything goes. NAMBLA’s signs use to appear at Gay Parades (I suppose they still do, but I have not checked lately). NAMBLA is North American Man Boy Love Association. And then there are those who think incest is, along with pedophilia as indicated by NAMBLA, an acceptable life style. And then there is the teaching in some public schools, according to what I googled, as like in Massachusetts or so I read, where children are encouraged to play roles as homosexuals; we are talking of children as in pre-adolescence. Girls are encouraged to hold hands and pretend they are lesbians, etc.
I love my children, grandchildren, etc., but the idea suggested by such approaches is enough to make me want to upchuck. The curbing of governmental power might well be beyond anything we can do, but we are obligated to try. And remember our religious liberty was won by Baptists who were willing to suffer in order to obtain it. Other Christian groups have since come to see the value of such, and they hold much the same views as we do. Like they cooperated in the days of the American Revolution, so must we.
It could already be too late, but even so we must begin somewhere. The questions are: If not now, when? If not here, where? If not us, Who? And what is going to happen to our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, not to mention our descendants for many generations to come and the price in blood that will be paid, if we continue in our little comfort corners?
Count me among the astonished. I understand the persecution complex that often rears its head, but this is ridiculous. I think it’s fairly apparent that the city has overstepped its authority, but the subpoena is not an issue of religious liberty. The pastors initiated a lawsuit (justifiably, I think) and as part of the legal process, the city subpoenaed them. That’s called just another day in lawyer town. The pastors are not being inhibited in any way from doing what they have always done and no one outside this group is affected.
Meanwhile, the Christian internet has exploded in a flurry of misinformation: claims that the original law allows boys into girls’ bathrooms (which appears to be false); claims that all pastors have to submit sermons (which is false); claims that sermons must be scrutinized prior to preaching (which is false); claims that the city initiated action against the pastors in order to intimidate them (which is false). Now that the facts are beginning to circulate, some of those misinformed claims have partially died down, but it hasn’t stopped people shouting that this remains an issue of religious liberty.
Whose religious liberty is being violated? How does the city subpoena in response to the pastors’ lawsuit in any way violate the liberties of those pastors? One might say it violates their right to privacy, but when you initiate a lawsuit, you have to know you will come under scrutiny and can be subpoenaed for details pertinent to the case. If those pastors were instructing people on how to fill out the petition, that counts as pertinent to the case and statements – public and private – will be relevant.
Nothing to see here, folks, though I understand that distorting the facts gives Christians the warm fuzzies as further fuel for the persecution complex.
Chris, facts matter.
NONE of these pastors is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Dave,
Do you mean to claim that those pastors are not behind the lawsuit?
Interesting and not surprisingly, Chris. You seem to be equivocating your position…you have moved from “the pastors brought the suit, to now…they are behind it.” A subtle equivocation for sure…but one non the less.
The pastors are supportive of the community organization that brought the lawsuit.
Miller is right, best as I can tell, the pastors are not plaintiffs in the suit…so it would be inaccurate to say they brought the suit.
Perhaps the pastors lobbied for the cause or donated to that group….but so what? Even that would not make them bringers of the suit.
Tarheel,
Apparently I was wrong that the pastors brought the lawsuit. Whether or not they were involved in the lawsuit in some way is less clear.
But as I note in my comment below, that is irrelevant to whether or not the city is justified in issuing a subpoena.
They are being attacked and strong-armed under the power of the state because they were vocal in opposition the the HERO legislation and worked with others in the community to petetion the govt. for a redress of greivances…
Last time I checked – freedom of religion, expression, assembly were all first amendment rights and each of these are clearly under attack from the govt. of the city of Houston…
The Lawsuit that the community group brought is because the mayor and city lawyer invalidated petition to bring this vote to a referendum. In turn the city lawyers subpoenaed not just information from the judges…you are right, Christ that this is just a say in “lawyer land” and that intimidation is common and normal in that process….
What is not normal (YET) and what we are objecting to is that the hand of the state is intentionally seeking to intimidate pastors and churches for daring to speak and rally people against their initiatives…you are now OK with such given your new outlook on life – but it is still wrong and clearly unconstitutional…and besides that just plain ridiculous!
Chris,
How can you not see this as an attempt to bully Pastors into not preaching about homosexuality, gender identity, or to not say anything about the Mayor? From everything I’m reading, it sounds like an attempt to hush up any opposition to her gay agenda, by using legal means. How can you see it any different?
David
Also, the bathroom and shower room issue was in the HERO ordinance. Maybe it’s been removed? I don’t know. BUt, it was in there, originally, which shows how the Mayor and her entourage are thinking. It shows their vision…their agenda for the future.
David
David,
How can you say it is an attempt to bully pastors in any way? I don’t get that. Five pastors were subpoenaed for information relevant to the lawsuit. Welcome to the judicial system. From what I’ve read, the requested information seems to make sense in the city’s attempt to demonstrate irregularities with the petition.
Possibly found part of the answer in the ADF motion to block the subpoena; it refers to them as “not parties to this litigation” which raises some additional questions:
1. What individuals are party to the litigation?
2. Does this mean the pastors were not involved in the lawsuit, or only that they are not part of the formal process?
3. If these pastors were truly not part of the lawsuit, why were they singled out by the city?
In the city’s initial response to the original lawsuit, there is mention made of pastors giving instructions to people on how to collect the petition signatures. Since the lawsuit is about the petition, this strikes me as relevant information for the case. Even if the pastors were not part of the lawsuit, they are not beyond the reach of a subpoena if their actions directly relate to the matter at hand. If you have information relevant to a case, you can be subpoenaed to share that information with the court. This would not be a violation of your liberties, religious or otherwise, nor is it a violation of theirs.
Going back to the claim that this is a religious liberty issue, whether or not the pastors are connected to the case is irrelevant. This may demonstrate an overreach on the part of the city, but it would not demonstrate a violation of religious liberties. Again, in what way does the subpoena violate religious liberty?
It is a religious liberty issue. When you’ve got the Mayor of a very large city trying to use her position to silence Pastors from preaching on certain subjects.
David
David,
Except that is patent nonsense and represents the misinformation I mentioned early. The mayor is not trying to silence those pastors.
You are the only one here disseminating misinformation, Chris.
You have been demonstrated to be on the wrong side of the facts numerous times.
You are simply looking for fights and seeking to talk down to us.
Our concerns are not illegitimate. The mayor is bullying, plain and simple.
From what I’ve read, this appears to be bullying and an attempt at intimidation. I understand that is fairly normal in legal proceedings.
Chris, one thing I’ve observed with you through the years, though your positions on things have changed. You seemed to be sure that your opinion is absolute truth and disagreeing with you is absurd.
As a Christian pastor, this gives me some foreboding. I hope you might grant that without your permission, I might continue holding my own view on this. I hope you can tolerate that.
Dave,
One thing I’ve never figured out over the years is why you think we approach our positions differently. I assume you are open to being shown wrong, but nonetheless believe you are right. I am the same. What’s the difference? The only difference is your attempt to intimidate me into silence by trying to shame me with statements like that. (See what I did there?)
Chris, in your mind is a violation of free speech limited to silencing or prohibiting it?
Second, what relevance is there in their sermons to the lawsuits?
Les,
My right to free speech means I can express anything I want (within limits – slander, libel, threats, etc). The subpoena in no way hinders them from expressing anything they want.
As for the relevance, first note that the subpoena covered a lot of territory, not just sermons. And it is all relevant in establishing whether or not the petition was accurately informing people about the issue. As the city’s initial response to the lawsuit noted, the petition contained incorrect information – in particular, it focused on the claim that HERO permitted men into women’s restrooms, which was false. That’s one reason the petition was ruled out of order – people were signing a petition under false pretenses. Regarding the sermons, emails, etc, one guess is that the city’s lawyers want to see how far that kind of misinformation extended when rallying people for the petition.
Chris, I recognize and readily admit that I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve been reading arguments against this subpoena. Here is an excerpt with a link following. As to making false claims:
“The instant matter before this Court is just like Kubosh. The Charter is the controlling law: it specifies what makes a referendum petition binding. The affirmative defenses of fraud and unclean hands asserted by the City of Houston are not recognized under the law that controls this case. Even if the City of Houston could somehow show that the Plaintiffs misstated the effect of ERO in their summary of the law on the ERO Petition, such a showing would not be sufficient for the City of Houston to prevail. It can only prevail if it shows that the ERO Petition failed to meet the requirements set forth by the Charter such that the Mayor and City Attorney were justified in demanding it be rejected and refusing to allow it to be forwarded to the City Council for action. The Charter sets forth those requirements with specificity, and they have nothing to do with whether the Plaintiffs spoke fraudulently or otherwise have unclean hands.
Consequently, “any discovery related to equitable defenses not recognized under [the controlling law],” in this case, the Charter, “is irrelevant” and should be quashed. Id. This case is just like Kubosh, and this Court should reach the same decision as the Court of Appeals in that case.”
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillQuashBrief.pdf
Now as to free speech, is not government intimidation, should it be proved, be a violation of free speech? i.e. can a government be in violation of free speech if it can be shown to be engaging in such tactics as to effectively silence dissent?
Les,
I have yet to understand how a subpoena can be considered intimidation. What threats were made – or even implied – by a subpoena?
As for the bit you quoted, that argument is exactly why the courts are around. It will be up to the judges whether or not the argument has merit. But that argument does support my theory as to why the info was subpoenaed in the first place.
Chris, you wrote concerning the subpoena: “And it is all relevant in establishing whether or not the petition was accurately informing people about the issue.” I would agree that the city lawyers claim it is all relevant, but subpoenaing their “resume and curriculum vitae”? Seriously? I agree with you that subpoenaing sermons for discovery of evidence, in itself, is within the realm of law and not inherently “religious liberty” or “free speech” issues. On the other hand, I don’t suspect I can convince you that this is intentionally overreaching and burdensome. I do suspect that much of this will be quashed by a judge. On the other other hand, I doubt it is unusual for attorneys to request everything in subpoenas knowing that they won’t get much of it. This time it has just blown up in their faces.
You also ask three questions:
1. What individuals are party to the litigation? Of the four plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill is the Harris County GOP Chairman.
2. Does this mean the pastors were not involved in the lawsuit, or only that they are not part of the formal process? It is my understanding that these pastors are not part of the lawsuit, but were a part of the citizens uniting to petition [a referendum for] the repeal of the new ordinance.
3. If these pastors were truly not part of the lawsuit, why were they singled out by the city? They were active in promoting and gathering names for the petition. Again, guessing, it appears they were vocal and high profile in this activity and the city’s attorney’s believe/hope they will find irregularities and maybe even illegalities in the work they did regarding the petition. Part of this may be the city trying to “cover its tracks.” It seems highly unlikely that a petition with 3 times the necessary signatures would have so many irregularities as to be dismissed.
Chris, I am not sure if you really believe what you wrote or you are just taking a contrary position for the sake of argument.
But, anyone who does not see the “patent” religious liberty overtones of this action I think is truly remarkable.
Still waiting for someone to explain *how* this is a religious liberty issue.
Chris, at the risk of wrestling in the mud, I’ll ask you a question: “Were any requests made or discussions had about the speeches at say, Rotary Club meetings, or perhaps the Boy and Girl Scout meetings?
Of course the answer is “no” for reasons that seem obvious to most others.
Jack,
You’re right – it is obvious: those groups were not likely involved in the petition drive, certainly not to the extent of those pastors.
Still no answer to my question: what makes this a religious liberty issue?
Chris, I may try to answer your question. But before I do try, I have a question of you which may relate.
If these sermons are turned over and it becomes very clear that the preachers preached and made reference to “homosexuality, transgender issues or contained any references to the mayor,” and the council then issued or attempted to issue an injunction against the preachers for any further such messages and/or sued them for their messages, would that be a religious liberty issue?
Thanks,
Les
Les,
From the brief way you summarize that hypothetical, yes, that would be a religious liberty issue. But that’s not what is happening.
Chris, good that we agree on the hypo. As to your question, I think it may be a religious liberty issue. It is certainly a free speech issue (1st amendment). And from what I’ve seen is a bare attempt to quash such free speech.
Les
Les,
That doesn’t answer how. How is it a religious liberty issue? How is it even a free speech issue? They aren’t stopping anyone from saying anything. They are subpoenaing information relevant to a lawsuit.
Chris, to this question again: If these pastors were truly not part of the lawsuit, why were they singled out by the city?
The city attorney gives this explanation:
* the five pastors were actively involved in leading the fight against the Bathroom Bill and launching the petition drive.
* they appeared before the city council repeatedly regarding the ordinance and the petition
* the petition was organized at the churches
* organizing drives, rallies, and signing parties were held at the churches
Dear Chris: Don’t you know your American History. One of the Founding Fathers said, “The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.” Evidently, you take a lethargic stance, sort of like Prime Minister Chamberlain in the 1930s with reference to Hitler.
I don’t even understand why you all give Chris what he wants, “Attention.” This is a 1st amendment violation. This is why Leyland pretty much forced Madison into composing the Bill of Rights, and now in Houston, of all places, this mayor wants to silence citizens. Sam Houston would have driven her right out of Texas.
Nate, you are correct about Sam Houston, and he is a pretty imposing guy–I’ve seen his statue.
It’s true, everything is bigger in Texas–including the size of their heroes.
Nate, Chris needs us to straighten him out. 🙂
Les, I understand to an extent, but Chris is an apostate and Scripture says the best thing we could do for him is to have nothing to do with him, but pray that the world, Satan, and his sin might bring him to repentance. He has, since his apostasy, continued to interact here with the same impunity he had prior (pretty much). And, while I understand this is a blog and not a church, we are doing him no favors.
Nate,
Nothing like a good old fashioned shunning to get the juices flowing. And isn’t an apostate a person who claims to be a Christian yet lives in serious error? Although I was once a Christian, I am certainly not one anymore.
Nate,
To follow-up with a little bit of Bible (alas, no one has bought my Logos library yet; ref: https://sbcvoices.com/for-sale-a-logos-library/ )
In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 Paul has laid down instructions regarding discipline, and in that verse he says, “…what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.””
Throw 1 John 2:19 into the mix and the common (yet wrong) Baptist view would be that I never was a Christian. I was a poser in the church. Now I am completely outside the church, “showing my true colors”.
With that in mind, how would you apply biblical standards of church discipline to me? I would not necessarily be surprised to see some sort of “pearls before swine” reference, but I admit calling for church discipline is a surprise. It is the one who “bears the name of brother” (1 Cor 5:11) who is to be handed over to Satan, etc.
What are the religious liberty issues in Huston?
I think I read where Mike Huckabee spoke at the meeting in Houston.
It looks like the mayor is backing down a little and trying to cover herself.
She claims that the subpoenas were issues by pro bono attorneys without her knowledge. True? Who know?
She’s talking about narrowing the scope of the subpoenas. Probably to just to political activities from the pulpit.
Seems like she realizes she stepped on a pile of hornets.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/14/houston-subpoenas-pastors-sermons-equal-rights-ordinance-case-prompting-outcry/
Dave, from the link you submitted: “Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons. The subpoenas were issued by pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) in January. Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday. Both agree the original documents were overly broad. The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing. Feldman says the focus should be only on communications related to the HERO petition process.”
That sounds like an attempt to cover tracks, or bait and switch. ADF has posted online the “Notice of Intention to Subpoena Pastor Steve Riggle to Produce Documents or Tangible Evidence” It lists three law firms and the “City of Houston Legal Department” (they are representing the mayor). The notice was submitted by Susman Godfrey L.L.P., a law firm that is listed in the subpoena as “Lead Counsel for City of Houston.” City Attorney David Feldman is also named on the document. It also states, “Issued at the instance of the City of Houston, represented by the undersigned attorneys of record.”
If they didn’t know it seems like they chose not to know so they would have plausible deniability!
On the other hand, a lawyer friend of mine made the observation that political activity from the pulpit is a (controversial) TAX matter and is most definitely NOT the business of the mayor of the city.
I was a little puzzled about that from what was circulating as a tweet from (her office?).
Chris,
Do you really not see how the issuing of (frivolous) subpoenas is intimidating? Do you really not see how that such an action would serve to dissuade other pastors from speaking out? Do you really not see that this action could certainly have a quieting affect on those who fear power of the government? How about financial repercussions smaller church pastors who might be just as vocal about these matters might be intimidated by the possibility of financial repercussions for their small church – when frivolous subpoenas are issued by the state lawyers have to defend that and lawyers have to be paid.
Nope, I don’t see it and I think the claim is ridiculous.
“Every teacher knows that people are constantly protesting that the ‘can’t see’ some self-evident inference, but the supposed inability is usually a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion which wants not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all.”
-C. S. Lewis
Brent,
Nice, but zingers hardly make the case. So far no one has explained *how* it is intimidation or a violation of religious liberties. We only have people insisting that it *is*. “Because I said so!” only works with parents.
I think my point is that, yes, they have.
And even if the pastors refuse to be intimidated, that is certainly their goal in the subpoenas: if you oppose our agenda, be prepared for us to comb through your sermons/emails/texts/etc…
It’s like saying the targeting of conservative groups for audit by the IRS isn’t an intimidation tactic. It’s very purpose is harassment, intimidation – all under the guise of “we’re just trying to make sure you’re not cheating on your taxes.”
After the statements by the mayor herself and her office, it’s obvious that she believes these groups opened themselves up to being targeted by their “unprotected speech.”
The government exercising any form of legal intimidation (clearly what is intended here – though it has also clearly backfired on the mayor, who is now denying responsibility), the government exercising rights to review or hold pastors to account for their sermons – that ought to be chilling to anyone who values the First Amendment.
By her own admission, she claimed that the pastors sermons were “fair game” if they entered the political arena. When the mayor of a major city seeks to bring her city’s power to bear on pastors because they opposed her policies, it is not good.
Even legal experts (everyone it seems, but you) are admitting this was a government overreach at the least.
I’m quite sure that no amount of explanation will satisfy you, but there is reasonable evidence for reasonable people to believe that this is a First Amendment issue.
Chris seems to be playing the Devil’s Advocate. I have a friend who is a Moderate, and rather far out, but his response to the Houston thing was that it amounted to a threat to religious liberty and when that was gone…well. You know the rest. Conservatives and Moderates alike are not helped by what Houston city government has done, and any American that is acquainted with the Constitution and our history will be aware of that fact. Having taught US History, I have some justification for my response.
Upvote for Dave.
Here’s what the terms “fair game” and “not protected speech” tell you.
1. The mayor has no concept of what political statements are allowed under the law [ie any!].
2. The mayor thinks that pastors can stray from topics that are legitimate for them to address and move into other areas which might invite government scrutiny.
3. The mayor thinks that because she doesn’t like what the pastors have said, there’s no problem with placing a burden on the pastors & churches to produce a ridiculously broad array of communications that will be costly in both money and time.
4. She either has no idea of or no respect for the meaning of free exercise of religion: that churches may speak to moral/political/social issues freely & without fear of government reprisal.
No, speaking about political issues doesn’t not make anything “fair game” or speech “unprotected.” The fact that she thinks these kinds of things is troubling enough. The fact that she’s using her power to act on this skewed vision of how the 1st amendment applies is jaw-dropping.
Exactly. This is why it’s obvious from her tweet earlier today and other statements made that this absolutely is about intimidating & attempting to stop “political activity” they don’t like by churches and pastors.
Take a look at this quote from the RNS article Dave linked above:
“The pastors made their sermons relevant to the case by using the pulpit to do political organizing,” [Janice] Evans [chief policy offer for the mayor] 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.”
When city officials are parsing sermons to determine what they believe should be “protected” speech, we have a huge problem.
They don’t seem to realize that pastors & churches can take any political position and advocate any political issue [as can any other American citizen] they choose. Only endorsement of candidates is limited, and even there only so at threat of tax-exemption.
Unless there’s some accusation they were involved in advocating fraud, there’s no way any of this is pertinent to the lawsuit. And even if there were those kinds of accusations, there would need to be a criminal investigation – this lawsuit would hardly be the place for that kind of information to be “discovered.”
Everything points to this being an effort at intimidation and retribution for churches and pastors doing what they are perfectly within their legal rights to do.
They are subpoenaing the information, not trying to force the church to stop talking. I am not sure what the statement means by “protected speech” but I’m guessing it means “they said things relevant to this case, moving beyond strictly religious matters, and thus are fair game for a subpoena”
The money quote from Brent: “When city officials are parsing sermons to determine what they believe should be “protected” speech, we have a huge problem.”
David
Chris,
I’ve been driving the last almost 2 hours. Meanwhile Brent, Dave, Tarheel, Vol and others have said better than I ever could the truth of the matter. If you cannot see the intended intimidation here by a government against, in this case preachers/churches (though this could apply to anyone), free speech…well I don’t really see how we can dialogue about the rest of the situation.
Try to imagine a conservative administration (maybe the Ashcroft AG era) issuing a subpoena to African American pastors/churches who/which had spoken out against the administration proposals/executive orders. Hmmm.
“I don’t really see how we can dialogue about the rest of the situation.”
Agreed.
Chris, I know you took my “I don’t really see how we can dialogue about the rest of the situation” to bail out. And I see you also had nothing to say in response to my “imagine” situation I threw out there. But since it is not directly about the Houston “situation,” will you not comment on my “imagine” situation I raised? Or do you see the trap too clearly?
There is no trap. Your example does not apply.
Chris, your expected reply was right on que. Just as C.S. Lewis said above. “…usually a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion which wants not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all.”
Les,
And you had already planned your response, no matter what I said.
Yes, Dave, that is my understanding as well. Politics in the pulpit is not a criminal issue, but a tax standing/tax exemption issue.
Saw this tweet tonight from Dr. Moore. I think it bears to the double standard evident in all of this.
@drmoore
Houston Mayor @AnniseParker likes “politics in the pulpit.” When it’s supportive of her policies:
ncmin.com/?p=492
Luke,
That link is too good to not be accessible.
http://ncmin.com/?p=492
The “good mayor” is clearly a hypocrite and perhaps worse on this issue.
Thanks tarheel. Posting from phone and couldn’t make it work. I agree that her biases are clear
It would seem that the mayor is backing off.
One tends to do that when one steps on a hornet’s nest.
She not only stepped in a hornets nest – she crawled up inside it and started swatting at the hornets!
As I would expect for two reasons:
#1. This is way more negative publicity than she ever imagined might come from this.
#2. She’s probably talked with her lawyers who explained (1) what she should have learned in middle school civics – that churches are allowed to speak to political issues if they choose and (2) that she’s about to get an epic smackdown in court if she keeps up this nonsense.
I would comply with the request to submit all sermons – verbally, with the requesting parties as my guest audience in a reserved seating section in the front of the church.
Simply put, and this is something the resident antagonist here will not admit exists, this is what is known as a “chilling effect.” It is the illegitimate use of a legitimate subpoena power in order to produce a desired response – cowering some into silence and drawing others out for a fight in friendlier battlegrounds (a courtroom).
It is interesting that left-wing organizations frequently use the 501(c)3 as a club against conservative evangelical churches and pastors, but yet Democratic political candidates are routinely the invited guests of non-conservative church pulpits during the election seasons with no one questioning those churches’ tax status.
The reason for this is easy to understand: one side of this debate believes in the use of government power as a weapon to skewer opposition. The other sees government power as a necessary beast that must be properly restrained.
Think about it, when was the last time you heard of Jim Wallis and the Sojourners being put under scrutiny by the government? They retain a tax exempt status and all they do is talk about political issues explicitly. And no one ever bothers them? Why? Because they embody the Left wing’s values.
My church once per year receives a warning letter from a not even local atheist group regarding speaking “politically” in public. We ignore it and preach, sing and teach the word and wherever it applies – whether to the sanctimonious right or scurrilous left – it applies.
Follow Christ, sometimes that will be on what is viewed as the left of the human perspective on issues and sometimes on the right and sometimes completely apolitical. That’s how we approach all things pertaining to our church work.
God be with those being truly persecuted and open the eyes of the persecutors and those who are still at ease in Zion.
James
Great comment.
Yep
James,
Amen.
David
I may not be able to articulate how the actions of the city of Houston against the five pastors violate religious liberty well enough to satisfy some. However, maybe the Texas Attorney General’s words can satisfy that religious liberty as been assaulted. In his letter to the city attorney for Houston, Attorney General Abbott said,
“Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment. The people of Houston and their religious leaders must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious affairs are beyond the reach of the government.”
That quote is taken from his website which has the letter written to the Houston city attorney, David Feldman.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4880
Dave: “. . . Again, both liberals and conservatives ought to be offended by this. To paraphrase . . . Bart . . . ‘I am old enough to remember when liberals supported the First Amendment.’”
Norm: As far as I know, they still do. Quite sure many here consider Welton Gaddy a liberal. Concerning this matter, he states: “My understanding is that the sermons that reportedly were subpoenaed take a very different perspective than mine. However, I will work as hard to defend the freedom of speech from the pulpit for those with whom I disagree, as I will to defend the rights of the LGBT community. As long as a sermon is not inciting violence, the government has no business getting involved in the content of ministers’ sermons.”
For his complete statement, follow this link: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/the-news/press-releases/615-interfaith-alliance-open-letter-to-the-mayor-and-city-attorney-of-houston
I appreciate the link Norm. Thanks.
Well, it seems that the Attorney General of Texas has spoken (or, rather written) to the Attorney for the City of Houston: “Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the the First Amendment.” Amen!
Granted, this is the same fellow running for governor in a state currently featuring Rick Perry. This is also the fellow who claimed that blocking same-sex marriage will help reduce unplanned pregnancies. He has also defended displaying religious texts on state property. Now, I realize these points are likely to stir some cheers around these parts, but outside of the circle of people that share his beliefs, I can’t imagine why someone might suspect bias on his part.
Chris
Another word for bias is belief or conviction. Everyone has them. We elect people base on their bias/belief/conviction and we have a right to expect that they vote in accordance with what we elected.
One would hope their primary commitment would be to the truth, whether or not it reflects the will of their constituents. But these are politicians we’re talking about.
82% of Houstonians were against the new restroom ordininance but that didn’t stop the mayor and city council from passing it.
John,
That’s actually a fabrication. No restroom ordinance passed. What passed did not say anything about restrooms.
Chris Roberts,
I read this in a Yahoo News store entitled, “Why the City of Houston wanted the sermons of five Christian pastors”
This is the 15th paragraph from the top of the story, “A central point of contention in the new ordinance is that if transgender people are barred access to a restroom, they may file a discrimination complaint.”
No fabrication at all.
I just read this on Vinson and Elkins attorney website.
“The ordinance explicitly protects the rights of persons to use restrooms, shower facilities, etc. appropriate to their expressed gender identity. Places of public accommodation may not deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with that person’s expression of gender identity. However, it is a defense if the defendant had a good faith belief that the gender identity of the person was not consistent with the gender designation of the facility, based on the person’s expressed behavior, clothing, hairstyles, etc. Places of public accommodation include all businesses with a physical location in the city that are open to the general public and offer products, services, or facilities.”
John,
You need new sources. That’s one of the pieces of misinformation being spread, including being spread on the original petition and part of the reason why the petition was problematic. Notice, for instance, http://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Mayor-drops-bathroom-provision-from-5474575.php which notes that that particular clause was dropped from the proposed ordinance months ago. The version that passed had no bathroom language.
Chris,
Read my first link again, it does still have a provision for transgender restroom use. The first article I referenced was dated yesterday, your link is 5 months old. Perhaps it’s you who needs new or perhaps newer sources.
Even MSNBC admits this is true, “The ordinance’s passing came after heavy opposition. A final vote was pushed back earlier this month after critics raised issues with what’s been dubbed “the bathroom clause.” Parents and others expressed concerns that transgender people would be allowed to use public restrooms of the gender in which they identify themselves. The clause was ultimately removed, but transgender people can still file a discrimination complaint under the process outlined for all protected classes.”
There is a provision for transgendered people to file a complaint on this issue.
Chris
Yes they are politicians and of course therein is the issue. However “truth” in itself is a, and reflects my bias. My truth lies in scripture thereby revealing my bias.
Hence I will stand by my comment. Public officials run on a platform. they tell me their values, beliefs, stances etc. If I vote for them based on that platform I expect them to act accordingly when the issues arise.
….and Roberts is demonstrably wrong AGAIN.
Tarheel,
How? Wylie’s quote clearly states, “The clause was ultimately removed” meaning I was right – the ordinance does not allow men into women’s restrooms.
“but transgender people can still file a discrimination complaint under the process outlined for all protected classes.”
You missed that part and it further proves that you were wrong, because you said the ordinance said NOTHING about bathrooms.
Chris, I don’t think you’re paying attention. You are wrong because even though the specific clause was removed, the broad protection given still will allow businesses to be reported for a “discrimination complaint” for the same action. From the John Wylie’s quote of MSNBC at October 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm above.
John,
The MSNBC summary says individuals can file a discrimination complaint. Others in the comments have said the ordinance mentions nothing about restrooms. I imagine the complaint section is generic – if individuals believe they have been discriminated, a complaint can be filed. MSNBC attached that to the restroom issue.
Brent,
A complaint means nothing. What punitive measures are initiated by a complaint? Do they actually cause any action against a business, even an investigation? Or are they just a way of – you know – complaining? Do you know the answer to my question or are you allowing persecution syndrome to lead you to the worst case scenario, a scenario that isn’t even in line with the facts?
And this will be my last comment on this. You folks are ridiculous. I know we’ve had our disagreements, but this goes beyond a simple argument over which side is right and which is wrong. You folks are not even paying attention to the details, jumping instead to guesses, assumptions, and the common Christian love of claiming persecution anytime things do not go your way.
Chris: You say to one of the bloggers, “you are ridiculous.” What shall we say about you? I shall forbear, lest I transgress the will of my Lord. Apprehensions concerning what is coming is not necessarily a mistaken response. Consider how the Germans failed to respond to Hitler from the very beginning. Only people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer saw what was coming and answered accordingly. You have joined the other side, a side I once held (Atheism). So why should it bother you, if some of us are apprehensive. After all, we have children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. They are the ones who will have to suffer. Remember what the Atheists did to believers in Soviet Russia (what they are doing even now in China and North Korea and other countries, not counting the more extreme Moslem areas like ISIS. While I am not as apprehensive as you might think, and I have some idea of how this great conflict might be either avoided or minimized, you are not realistic when it comes to consider what many of the unbelievers today want to do to believers in this nation where they enjoy the freedoms that they do all because of the Christians who settled this land. Folks who take a look at what is happening in Europe, etc., are aware of the restrictions being placed on Christians. In England, for example, they have areas where Sharia law apply. If a believer tries to bear witness in that area, they might suffer at the least the weight of British law. Already, they have tried to prevent believers from bearing witness in Flint, Michigan, city dominated by Moslems. Or have you read upon this issue? Yes, believers make mistakes just like anyone else, and sometimes they do not appear to be in the best light. But, friend, I would not care about appearing in the light of the Communists who exterminated people by the millions and had a special vendetta against Bible believing Christians. Seems like I remember reading a statement by Lenin to the effect that they considered such people to be their worst enemies. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yes yes we know Chris, anyone who dares to disagree with you is ridiculous. You said the ordinance said NOTHING about bathrooms, you were wrong.
D.L. Payton,
and when did this happen? Politicians voting the way we expect them to vote.
My, my, Chris: What in the world was Washington, Jefferson, and the other early presidents thinking, when they commended the Christian Faith (meaning they commended the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ) of their constituents to the Native Americans. Besides Jefferson attended church, a Baptist Church, no less, right in the capital building, while there were other churches meeting in other parts of the government buildings, one was even in the treasury building. And why in the world would the Supreme Court state in a decision in 1792 that this was a Christian nation? The same institution did it again in 1892. And why did the first major American Historian, Dr. George Bancroft, call the US a “Calvinistic Republic” and write the first large scale history of our nation? One can google and find that those early folks were “fanatics for liberty.” Why even two strong religious believers, Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, were responsible for establishing in law and practice, the doctrine of religious liberty, all because they believe people should be persuaded not coerced. But the leftist folks only believe in toleration (as in we will tolerate you until we get the power and then we will put the screws to you. This subpoena stuff for the sermons is but a slight indication of what is coming, unless the American people wake up and unless they don’t get sidetracked by folks wanting to use the situation for their own purposes.
But but but John Wylie. Don’t you know that it’s only Christians and/or conservatives who are guilty of bias? Come, come now. Those in the Houston city government couldn’t possible be biased.
It is obvious that the gay agenda is to stamp out all dissent.
Les, yes…angels one and all I am sure! 🙂
last line, sorry, one the two many
The fact is folks, everyone knows that this is out of line and based on the Mayor’s tweets she is “going after” these pastors, so you have to be pretty biased to deny that.
John, I don’t think you can say, “everyone knows.” Chris seems to have a different opinion.
Jack,
A person can deny what they know to be true.
John,
Any thoughts about my info below regarding the language of the ordinance?
I pretty much read the ordinance last night, or at least most of it, and your final comment last night was from what I could see correct.
Okay, I lied, one final comment. Here is the HERO ordinance that has been creating such a stir:
http://www.houstontx.gov/equal_rights_ordinance.pdf
You will note that this is the ordinance that actually passed.
Also note:
Not one single mention of restrooms as relates to allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. I do have to admit one mistake: restrooms are mentioned in the document – in the housing section, as it lays out requirements for how new homes should be constructed for disabled access. Absolutely nothing to do with gender. The primary focuses of the ordinance are employment and housing.
The Exhibit A of the document does have a section discussing complaints. It includes a warning against those who file frivolous complaints “without foundation in law or fact, or done solely for the purpose of harassment.”
While anyone can file a complaint if they believe they have been discriminated against, it has to be discrimination as defined by law. Since the law makes no mention of restrooms, I’m hard pressed to see how that would be a legitimate grounds for complaints. The ordinance doesn’t say anything about restrooms in its discussion of complaints. The ordinance does not elsewhere say anything about restrooms. I know this may come as a shock, but MSNBC could have been wrong about people being able to file complaints if they are not allowed to use the restroom of their choice.
To recap the pertinent point: no mention in the ordinance about people using the restroom of their choice, or being able to complain of not allowed to use the restroom of their choice.
Just an observation – your starting point was that no reasonable person would believe the sermon subpoenas were intimidation. Since that point has been roundly refuted (even by many on the left), what is it we’re arguing about now? Details of the law itself, whether the word “bathroom” appears, and whether or not a man can sue for not being allowed in a woman’s restroom. I think you like disagreeing just for the sake of it.
Brent,
I don’t remember saying anything quite like that. Rather, I said I don’t think the subpoenas are intimidation and I asked for explanation of how they were. What I consider unreasonable is the attempt to find a negative spin over every aspect of the case, even if such a spin requires ignoring the facts and injecting misinformation.
The discussion over the restrooms were sparked by other people insisting the ordinance allowed people to go to any restroom they wanted. I assume you folks care about truth and accuracy, so it seemed important to clarify that no, the ordinance that passed did not contain any such provision.
Was I wrong about your commitment to truth and accuracy?
Houston’s mayor announced that she now believes the subpoena was overly broad and will be restricted. In spite of initially doubling down on her intimidation tactics, she is now in retreat, blaming the pro bono lawyers who drafted the original demand.
She has committed public relations suicide and shown exceptionally poor judgement. The people of Houston are right to ask questions.
Wanna bet this moved from advocacy lawyers to the city’s real lawyers who smelled a loser? We will see how far the Mayor retreats.
I would like to know with what organization do these pro bono lawyers work?
I also would like to know even though they are not paid since pro bono means they’re doing it for free, who hired them who asked them to work with them or who approved they’re working on the case?
Both the mayor and the city lawyer both doubled down at first then when the heat got hot they backed off and blamed it on the pro bono lawyers…but if they hired the pro bono people or if they brought Them in and they allowed them to argue in their case they’re still responsible for what these pro bono lawyers do.
Have they fired at these pro bono lawyers meaning that they are no longer allowing them to work on the case or are they still working on the case? If these Pro bono “culprits” are still working on the case and it makes one wonder how sincere they now are in throwing them under the bus.
I personally also find it very unbelievable matter fact, requires this is the willing suspension of all disbelief, to believe that the city mayor was not involved in a case that was involving the mayors personal agenda item. Both the city mayor and the city attorney had worked very hard on this HERO ordinance I just find it incredibly hard to believe that neither of them had anything to do with any of the court filings that they are now backing away from.
Honestly, this strikes me as a mantra we hear from Washington quite often “I learned about this upon reading it in the papers”.
Most likely, these were lawyers who agreed to defend the city on the case, hoping for a win in court and judge’s order that the plaintiff pay the bills. This is not uncommon at all…(reference to case familiar to most here omitted to stay on topic)…and is often at play in any form of civil rights type litigation.
It would also likely be the case if ADF or another group sued the city on behalf of the subpoenaed, without billing the individuals. At the end, their hope is to win and be awarded legal fees.
Same way the “If we don’t win your case for you, you don’t us a dime!” injury lawyers work. Percentage of award + legal fees paid by loser.
In all, it is within the scope of reason that the overly broad subpoenas (admitted to be such by right and left, including Houston’s mayor) were issued by an overly zealous group looking to win a lawsuit. It is intimidation that is apparently normal behavior in lawsuits: Want to take us to court? Then we’ll rip everything about your life into the open, relevant or not.
It should give us two major concerns:
1. The already discussed religious liberty concerns.
2. The large issue of the insane notion that tactics like this, and a court system that permits and encourages such behaviors, approaches “justice.”
And yes, when a subpoena wants a list of who heard a sermon and what else you have emailed or discussed with those people, that’s a religious liberty issue.
But when the general response is “that’s the way lawsuits go…” then maybe we need a major change in the way lawsuits go.