Lesbian Houston Mayor Goes After Churches

[fhl]

America is not a Christian nation - Salon.com
www.salon.com/2009/04/14/christian_nation/Salon

Apr 14, 2009 - ... country. But President Obama is right when he says it isn't.

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/14/christian_nation/

================

Obama defines US as "Muslim Country"
In an interview with French TV station, says number of Muslims residing in US justifies regarding it as a Muslim Country
Oct 13, 2014, 11:00AM | Yoni Ariel

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news...globe/obama-defines-us-as-muslim-country-8785

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The mayor says the subpoenas were too broad, and should not have included actual sermons.

"It’s not about what did you preach on last Sunday," Parker told reporters Wednesday. "It should have been clarified, it will be clarified."

***********

They still don't get it. The problem is not sermons, it's the government somehow having the idea they can investigate religious groups because they take a position on an issue.

It's another in a series of leftwing attacks on conservatives for participating in the political process. We have had the Tom DeLay prosecution, the Perry indictment, the McDonnell prosecution, the Scott Walker fiasco, the Palin witch hunt, the prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza for making a movie, etc etc.

This will continue until republicans begin to fight back. Why shouldn't they continue? Like democrat vote fraud, it has been very successful, plus they have the media pretending they are rooting out corruption.

 

[stu]

Did you ever take a look at the "anti-discrimination" law passed in Houston - it is very discriminatory. I expect this absurd law that allows men to use the women's restroom will not hold up under constitutional review in the courts. This law is about the far left pushing an extreme agenda, not about protecting citizens' basic rights against discrimination.

Sounds like you haven't taken a look at the law passed in Houston. Sounds like you just fell for and swallowed hook line and sinker, another hysterical religious agenda that objects to anti-discrimination law because "- it is very discriminatory."

 

[stu]

So what if it is? That doesn't give the city the right to attack them or harrass them with subpoenas, lawsuits etc.

Plenty of private and public organizations, government bodies and individuals have the right to harass anyone with subpoenas, lawsuits etc if they can be issued. Why the sam hill should a church or bunch religious freaks be considered any different in that regard? They aren't more special than anyone else. Self-righteous pious indignation is no grounds for exemption.


The argument is about a litigious christian organization filing suit because it is said there are not enough valid signatures to qualify for a ballot to repeal the law. You know, a repeal to allow people to go back to discriminating against each other because just another ridiculous religious story book tells them to. Quite reasonably, it is because of that suit that subpoenas had been issued . Same as they would if some newspaper had filed and not the bunch of religious fanatics.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Religious organizations enjoy contitutional freedom from government regulation of speech. It is set out in the same First Amendment that also grants freedom of the press.

Can you imagine the outcry if a conservative city started subpoening newspaper editorial board notes, etc?

 

[stu]

Religious organizations enjoy contitutional freedom from government regulation of speech. It is set out in the same First Amendment that also grants freedom of the press.

Can you imagine the outcry if a conservative city started subpoening newspaper editorial board notes, etc?

I can more than imagine the outcry holier than thou religious litigators are fast to adopt at every turn.

Subpoenas are for gaining information substantially relevant to a case. Whether it's a church or a newspaper, neither are above the law

If the Subpoena is valid in its parameters (this one apparently went too wide - many are reviewed) then what's good for the goose...you know the rest.

 

[fhl]

I can more than imagine the outcry holier than thou religious litigators are fast to adopt at every turn.

Subpoenas are for gaining information substantially relevant to a case. Whether it's a church or a newspaper, neither are above the law

If the Subpoena is valid in its parameters (this one apparently went too wide - many are reviewed) then what's good for the goose...you know the rest.

The outcry about this was because they went after the sermons, mr smarter than thou idiot.

 

[stu]

The outcry about this was because they went after the sermons, mr smarter than thou idiot.

Yeah like I said dick for brains, you like others make a holier than thou outcry for no real reason. So what if sermons were subpoenaed. It isn't as if they are confidential even. And as it happens they would anyway not apparently be pertinent to the matter.

 

[fhl]

You really don't see a problem with the gov't forcing churches to hand over sermons, do you, mr smarter than thou?

 

[stu]

You really don't see a problem with the gov't forcing churches to hand over sermons, do you, mr smarter than thou?

No I don't.
The government isn't forcing churches to hand over sermons. If the subpoena doesn't stand court scrutiny it will fail anyway. If it does, it must contain important and relevant information directly concerning the case.

In that regard, everyone including holier than thou religious dick brains like yourself, are not above the law.