Houston demands local pastors turn over sermons.

[CountryClassSF]

Stupid, stupid, stupid move.

Maybe, but illustrates the point many have been saying all along - that religious freedom is under attack by leftists. This woman allowed her sexuality to literally take precedent over BOTH freedom of speech and the free exercise clause.  Why does it matter to her what happens in a private religious institution?

This is a serious infringement on civil rights.  I don't care how people feel about gay marriage. Every reasonable person should agree that a private institution/religious institution has a right to free speech.  If SSM is legalized in that state, why does she care so much about what others say in a church service??

[AggregateDemand]

The subpoenas are to get information about what occurred during the petition process to repeal the law.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the signature pages were properly prepared. This situation is just left-wing authoritarian overreach perpetrated by city officials who are bent out of shape about religious leaders starting a petition when religious speech was reportedly exempted from HERO.

[Gass3268]

There really is no story here, as usual this is a right wing exaggeration trying to make a controversy out of thing. This explains everything:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16/3580636/houston-pastors-subpoenas-religious-freedom/

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16/3580636/houston-pastors-subpoenas-religious-freedom/
[/quote]
Think Progress is hardly an objective source, and furthermore, what legal right does the city have to inquire about petition collection? Delivering signatures that were not completed right is not a crime. The ballot drive failed, and the subpoenas are nothing more than retribution. The Think Progress article did not once justify why the subpoenas were justified in response to the flawed petititons.

[Gass3268]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16/3580636/houston-pastors-subpoenas-religious-freedom/

Think Progress is hardly an objective source, and furthermore, what legal right does the city have to inquire about petition collection? Delivering signatures that were not completed right is not a crime. The ballot drive failed, and the subpoenas are nothing more than retribution. The Think Progress article did not once justify why the subpoenas were justified in response to the flawed petititons.

[/quote]


The "No Unequal Rights" group is suing that the petitions should be certified. The city is subpoenaing for information to be used as evidence in the upcoming case, like is done in every other situation. How is it that complicated? Also if the churches are passing around petitions, that is politicking and they should lose their tax exempt status.

[Indy Texas]

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

[Gass3268]

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

Exactly, happy that someone else understands what is actually going on here.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16/3580636/houston-pastors-subpoenas-religious-freedom/
Think Progress is hardly an objective source, and furthermore, what legal right does the city have to inquire about petition collection? Delivering signatures that were not completed right is not a crime. The ballot drive failed, and the subpoenas are nothing more than retribution. The Think Progress article did not once justify why the subpoenas were justified in response to the flawed petititons.

The "No Unequal Rights" group is suing that the petitions should be certified. The city is subpoenaing for information to be used as evidence in the upcoming case, like is done in every other situation. How is it that complicated? Also if the churches are passing around petitions, that is politicking and they should lose their tax exempt status.

Why wouldn't "No Unequal Rights" submit their own evidence? I confess that I am by no means an expert on civil law, but from my miniscule knowledge, I don’t think I am aware of a city collecting evidence from their opponents in a lawsuit. Wouldn’t a third party (ie, a county court) cover this issue?

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

I know the city is not actually persecuting the pastors, but the lawyers actions still seem almost heavy handed. As I asked Gass above, is it normal for cities to collect evidence from people engaged in a lawsuit against them?

[bedstuy]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16/3580636/houston-pastors-subpoenas-religious-freedom/
Think Progress is hardly an objective source, and furthermore, what legal right does the city have to inquire about petition collection? Delivering signatures that were not completed right is not a crime. The ballot drive failed, and the subpoenas are nothing more than retribution. The Think Progress article did not once justify why the subpoenas were justified in response to the flawed petititons.

The "No Unequal Rights" group is suing that the petitions should be certified. The city is subpoenaing for information to be used as evidence in the upcoming case, like is done in every other situation. How is it that complicated? Also if the churches are passing around petitions, that is politicking and they should lose their tax exempt status.

Why wouldn't "No Unequal Rights" submit their own evidence? I confess that I am by no means an expert on civil law, but from my miniscule knowledge, I don’t think I am aware of a city collecting evidence from their opponents in a lawsuit. Wouldn’t a third party (ie, a county court) cover this issue?

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

I know the city is not actually persecuting the pastors, but the lawyers actions still seem almost heavy handed. As I asked Gass above, is it normal for cities to collect evidence from people engaged in a lawsuit against them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)#Civil_discovery_in_the_United_States

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/16/3580636/houston-pastors-subpoenas-religious-freedom/
Think Progress is hardly an objective source, and furthermore, what legal right does the city have to inquire about petition collection? Delivering signatures that were not completed right is not a crime. The ballot drive failed, and the subpoenas are nothing more than retribution. The Think Progress article did not once justify why the subpoenas were justified in response to the flawed petititons.

The "No Unequal Rights" group is suing that the petitions should be certified. The city is subpoenaing for information to be used as evidence in the upcoming case, like is done in every other situation. How is it that complicated? Also if the churches are passing around petitions, that is politicking and they should lose their tax exempt status.

Why wouldn't "No Unequal Rights" submit their own evidence? I confess that I am by no means an expert on civil law, but from my miniscule knowledge, I don’t think I am aware of a city collecting evidence from their opponents in a lawsuit. Wouldn’t a third party (ie, a county court) cover this issue?

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

I know the city is not actually persecuting the pastors, but the lawyers actions still seem almost heavy handed. As I asked Gass above, is it normal for cities to collect evidence from people engaged in a lawsuit against them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)#Civil_discovery_in_the_United_States

But this is what I don't understand: if they are suing the city to get on the ballot, why should the defendents also be the judge? Wouldn't this go to a court above the municipal level? I am very ignorant of the law.

[bedstuy]

But this is what I don't understand: if they are suing the city to get on the ballot, why should the defendents also be the judge? Wouldn't this go to a court above the municipal level? I am very ignorant of the law.

I don't really know what you mean.

My bet is that this is in state court.  Discovery is a process where the parties in a lawsuit can request documents, interviews and written answers from each other.  So, the city is requesting documents in their capacity as a party to a lawsuit, not in their capacity as a local government.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

But this is what I don't understand: if they are suing the city to get on the ballot, why should the defendents also be the judge? Wouldn't this go to a court above the municipal level? I am very ignorant of the law.

I don't really know what you mean.

My bet is that this is in state court.  Discovery is a process where the parties in a lawsuit can request documents, interviews and written answers from each other.  So, the city is requesting documents in their capacity as a party to a lawsuit, not in their capacity as a local government.

Gotcha. In that case, I retract my earlier posts. There really is no story here.

[Indy Texas]

Gotcha. In that case, I retract my earlier posts. There really is no story here.

Tell that to Ted Cruz (JD, Harvard Law) and all the other Republican lawyers who know very well that there is no story here and are still screaming bloody murder to score political points with the Religious Right and other crypto-homophobes.

[AggregateDemand]

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

The matter in dispute is whether or not the petition documents were legally prepared. You're assuming that the sermons serve a discovery function. They don't. They are not relevant, and the pastors could probably claim that they are privileged.

The city has no justification for issuing subpoenas for the sermons. They've not even tried to justify the subpoenas. The mayor said it was a mistake, and the city attorneys shrugged and said "this is what we always do". Standard-operating-procedure does not speak to the relevance (or lack of relevance) of the documents for which the subpoena was issued.

This is overreach. Whether or not they had malicious intent is debatable.

[SteveRogers]

I think people are failing to understand that this is basically how civil procedure works.

This is being interpreted as the City of Houston demanding to read pastors' sermons in order to do who knows what to them.

The City of Houston isn't doing anything. Their lawyers are. And during the discovery process, lawyers are always going to err on the side of making their requests for production as broad as possible, while the defense is going to try to object to as much of it as possible. Subpoenaing third-party records like the pastors' sermons is an example of this. The defense is going to object on the grounds that it's a "fishing expedition" on the part of the prosecution.

Nothing is actually going to happen to the pastors in question. They're not on trial and they're not facing any punishment. This whole thing is being blown completely out of proportion.

The matter in dispute is whether or not the petition documents were legally prepared. You're assuming that the sermons serve a discovery function. They don't. They are not relevant, and the pastors could probably claim that they are privileged.

The city has no justification for issuing subpoenas for the sermons. They've not even tried to justify the subpoenas. The mayor said it was a mistake, and the city attorneys shrugged and said "this is what we always do". Standard-operating-procedure does not speak to the relevance (or lack of relevance) of the documents for which the subpoena was issued.

This is overreach. Whether or not they had malicious intent is debatable.

If the pastors decline to turn over the requested documents, the judge presiding over the case will step in to determine what communications are relevant to the case. And I don't think there's any basis for saying that sermons are "privileged." There really, really is not a story here. This is not a free speech issue. It is a run-of-the-mill dispute over discovery in a civil suit that the pastors brought against the city.

[Indy Texas]

If your lawyer isn't overreaching during discovery, you need a better lawyer. You always try to get as much information from the other side as you can get and then you sift through to see if it's of use to your case later. My firm once had a suit against a major industrial equipment manufacturer. I guarantee you we subpoenaed every shred of correspondence - emails, faxes, meeting minutes - that we could get out of them. Some of it was ruled to be privileged and wasn't produced but most of it was. We had literally dozens of boxes of the stuff and more on CDs. It was a nightmare.

This is no different. I don't see why a church sermon is somehow "privileged" information when literally anyone can go in there on Sunday morning and listen. Now it's an invasion of privacy to want to see the written version?

[AggregateDemand]

If the pastors decline to turn over the requested documents, the judge presiding over the case will step in to determine what communications are relevant to the case. And I don't think there's any basis for saying that sermons are "privileged." There really, really is not a story here. This is not a free speech issue. It is a run-of-the-mill dispute over discovery in a civil suit that the pastors brought against the city.

You think a city issuing subpoenas to check the content of religious documents is a run-of-the-mill discovery dispute. I see.

[bedstuy]

Republicans never let the facts get in the way of outrage.

The lesbian Benghazian Muslim Democrat Mayor is clearly trying to force pastors to play house music instead of hymns and replace the Holy Bible with a biography of Judy Garland!!!  Or whatever, Republicans just know that they're always victims and whatever Democrats do is fodder for outrage.

[Indy Texas]

If the pastors decline to turn over the requested documents, the judge presiding over the case will step in to determine what communications are relevant to the case. And I don't think there's any basis for saying that sermons are "privileged." There really, really is not a story here. This is not a free speech issue. It is a run-of-the-mill dispute over discovery in a civil suit that the pastors brought against the city.

You think a city issuing subpoenas to check the content of religious documents is a run-of-the-mill discovery dispute. I see.

They're not demanding to see the Ark of the Covenant. If a church has services that are open to the public, then the written versions of the sermon that was given are not privileged information. They are not subpoenaing minutes from a private meeting of church leaders. They are not asking for transcripts of private phone calls. Do you seriously think the Thought Police are going to come arrest them in the middle of the night for subversive speech if they don't like what's in the sermons?

[SteveRogers]

If the pastors decline to turn over the requested documents, the judge presiding over the case will step in to determine what communications are relevant to the case. And I don't think there's any basis for saying that sermons are "privileged." There really, really is not a story here. This is not a free speech issue. It is a run-of-the-mill dispute over discovery in a civil suit that the pastors brought against the city.

You think a city issuing subpoenas to check the content of religious documents is a run-of-the-mill discovery dispute. I see.

Given the subject matter of the suit brought against the city, yes, of course it is.

[AggregateDemand]

This is no different.

This case is not a civil conflict between private companies with an economic interest. It is a public civil dispute between a group of citizens and their government.

If the singularity of the discovery rules blinds the city attorneys to the strategic differences between various types of civil litigation, they ought not be serving the public. Last I checked, the petitioners did not subpoena personal literature, documents, and communications of city officials to see if they had an anti-theist agenda. The petitioners seem to understand the concept of discovery without too much confusion.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Will they lose their right to marry? Will they get fired from their place of employment? Will they be put in jail, or stoned to death? Hanged to death? Will their families shun them? Will they get death threats?

I think they'll be ok.

If this is ok, what's to keep some city council from going after churches that preach gay rights? Or does that not matter either because somewhere something worse is happening?

This slippery slope foolishness never makes any sense. If you let the churches preach whatever they want, what's to keep them from inciting a riot and encouraging members to kill the gays? Oh noez

What on earth is this jibberish response supposed to mean?  Do you really not understand the idea of legal principles that apply to expression regardless of content?

[DC Al Fine]

Will they lose their right to marry? Will they get fired from their place of employment? Will they be put in jail, or stoned to death? Hanged to death? Will their families shun them? Will they get death threats?

I think they'll be ok.

If this is ok, what's to keep some city council from going after churches that preach gay rights? Or does that not matter either because somewhere something worse is happening?

This slippery slope foolishness never makes any sense. If you let the churches preach whatever they want, what's to keep them from inciting a riot and encouraging members to kill the gays? Oh noez

What on earth is this jibberish response supposed to mean?  Do you really not understand the idea of legal principles that apply to expression regardless of content?

I think we both know the answer to that

[DemPGH]

This is actually prudent, I think. They preached politics back in the ancient world and certainly in medieval times as well and used the pulpit and the Bible as shields as they do today. So, cooperate with the investigation or lose tax exempt status.

[AggregateDemand]

This is actually prudent, I think. They preached politics back in the ancient world and certainly in medieval times as well and used the pulpit and the Bible as shields as they do today. So, cooperate with the investigation or lose tax exempt status.

Tax-exempt status is not a privilege for a religious institution as it is for non-profit commercial organizations. Separation of church and state is a constitutional imperative, laid out in Article 6 and the First Amendment.

You don't have the constitutional authority to revoke tax exempt status, and doing so would be even more heavy-handed than the fools who subpoenaed their private records pursuant to an argument about the form of various legal documents filed by the church.