(10-18-2014 03:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, no one is telling them what they can and can't preach. People are simply saying that if you sue, you might have to open up that communication to public view.

And while we are on the subject of discrimination, the issue of HERO was that these 'persecuted ones' were seeking to allow companies like Exxon to fire all their Gay employees and to prevent Trans persons from access to a restroom while conducting commerce downtown.

People aren't buying this crap, Tom.

The dumb old bag has got Dems and Reps united against her.

We are talking about open public speeches here. This is beyond stupid. How do you need to find whats hidden in an open public speech?

Dumb, dumb, dumb

The champions of the anti bullying and tolerance movement once against using bully tactics to push their agenda on everyone else.

It never fails.

(10-18-2014 03:30 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 03:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, no one is telling them what they can and can't preach. People are simply saying that if you sue, you might have to open up that communication to public view.

And while we are on the subject of discrimination, the issue of HERO was that these 'persecuted ones' were seeking to allow companies like Exxon to fire all their Gay employees and to prevent Trans persons from access to a restroom while conducting commerce downtown.

People aren't buying this crap, Tom.

The dumb old bag has got Dems and Reps united against her.

We are talking about open public speeches here. This is beyond stupid. How do you need to find whats hidden in an open public speech?

Dumb, dumb, dumb

Meh, tempest in a teapot. People here know what Riggle, Hotze, Young, Wilson, and Welsh are.

KSEV doesn't set the tone in Houston. In Dickenson or Cut and Shoot, perhaps, but not in Houston.

(10-18-2014 02:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Again, if they were using the pulpit to electioneer and then sue over it, then the content of their actions is fully open to scrutiny. This isn't a confession. I'm not sure where there is any particular protections that the City is violating by simply asking for everything they did while they were electioneering on the referendum or on topic aligned to it, regardless of the forum used to electioneer.

As I understand it, the lawsuit was filed because the City Attorney threw out a bunch of signatures, enough so that the petition no longer met the statutory requirements for appearing on a ballot. The petitioners are challenging those decisions. There are statutory requirements that must be met for a signature to count. If the City Attorney faithfully applied those requirements, then it's an easy win for the City. If he fudged the rules enough so that there actually are a sufficient number of valid signatures, then the petitioners win and it's time for a referendum. The only thing at issue is the validity of the signatures.

If my understanding is correct, then any electioneering done from the pulpit is entirely irrelevant. Sure, it might be a violation of federal and/or state tax and election laws, but that is not at issue in the lawsuit. Even if the pastors (who are nonparties, taking away any application of unclean hands) actively campaigned against the Mayor or in favor of the petition for a referendum, it doesn't matter. If there are enough valid signatures to meet the statutory requirements then it doesn't matter if there were improper sermons because the signatures are still valid.

Please explain to me where I am wrong. Simply saying that it's a lawsuit so the City gets discovery isn't an answer.

Quote:You want to sue, fine. But then you get discovery. And yes, their email accounts are certainly coverable.

See, you keep acting like the pastors that were served with these subpoenas are parties to the lawsuit. They are not.

(10-18-2014 03:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And while we are on the subject of discrimination, the issue of HERO was that these 'persecuted ones' were seeking to allow companies like Exxon to fire all their Gay employees and to prevent Trans persons from access to a restroom while conducting commerce downtown.

Is there any evidence that Exxon is interested in firing all of their gay employees? Because that doesn't sound like something they would do. But it could be. After all, Exxon is moving their world headquarters to Spring.

(10-18-2014 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The whole church-state issue gets very complex. I tend to favor giving churches relatively free rein--and tax advantages. The good that they do justifies special treatment.

This is more of an aside, but one thing that I find amusing about these kinds of discussions is how often the same people who are very concerned with pastors engaging in electioneering activities from the pulpit then turn around and cry foul if early voting on the last Sunday before the election is cancelled because that's the day that the Black churches organize trips to the polls after Sunday services. It just seems a little incongruous.

Quote:I find it interesting that in the Katrina disaster, it was the church-sponsored organizations that were most effective.

Actually, I think Walmart was the most effective. Those greedy bastards.

Tom apparently does not comprehend the basic legal concept that yes, you can conduct discovery if sued, but that discovery must be limited to matters which are 1) at least potentially relevant to the litigation in question and 2) not protected by some privilege.

Yes, Tom, they are allowed to conduct discovery.
No, they should not be allowed to discover every sermon ever preached about homosexuality. This suit is about signatures on a petition, not about the pastors' position on homosexuality. Sermons about the petition would be relevant. Sermons about homosexuality, no. Does anyone have any doubt about any of these pastors' positions on homosexuality? As if that were an issue in this trial. Which it isn't.

(10-19-2014 12:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom apparently does not comprehend the basic legal concept that yes, you can conduct discovery if sued, but that discovery must be limited to matters which are 1) at least potentially relevant to the litigation in question and 2) not protected by some privilege.

Yes, Tom, they are allowed to conduct discovery.
No, they should not be allowed to discover every sermon ever preached about homosexuality. This suit is about signatures on a petition, not about the pastors' position on homosexuality. Sermons about the petition would be relevant. Sermons about homosexuality, no. Does anyone have any doubt about any of these pastors' positions on homosexuality? As if that were an issue in this trial. Which it isn't.

Give them time, let them hang themselves with their own rope.

(10-19-2014 12:22 AM)jh Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 03:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And while we are on the subject of discrimination, the issue of HERO was that these 'persecuted ones' were seeking to allow companies like Exxon to fire all their Gay employees and to prevent Trans persons from access to a restroom while conducting commerce downtown.

Is there any evidence that Exxon is interested in firing all of their gay employees? Because that doesn't sound like something they would do. But it could be. After all, Exxon is moving their world headquarters to Spring.

Exxon is the only member of the Fortune 50 to ever rescind employment protections based upon sexual orientation. They used to say "we will not discriminate". Now they reserve the right to discriminate. Exxon affirmed that decision to not protect its LGBT employees from discrimination as recently as last Spring at their annual shareholders meeting.

Exxon's world headquarters are in Irving. They are moving jobs out of the City of Houston to unincorporated Harris County.

To be sure, Exxon isn't the worst violator in that area. There are others that are worse. The perception at Exxon is that if you are discovered to be Gay, you probably wont lose your job, but that it might be the last promotion you get.

(10-19-2014 12:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom apparently does not comprehend the basic legal concept that yes, you can conduct discovery if sued, but that discovery must be limited to matters which are 1) at least potentially relevant to the litigation in question and 2) not protected by some privilege.

Yes, Tom, they are allowed to conduct discovery.
No, they should not be allowed to discover every sermon ever preached about homosexuality. This suit is about signatures on a petition, not about the pastors' position on homosexuality. Sermons about the petition would be relevant. Sermons about homosexuality, no. Does anyone have any doubt about any of these pastors' positions on homosexuality? As if that were an issue in this trial. Which it isn't.

Uh, when the petition is about homosexuality, the question becomes more obscure. There ARE protections for pastors, but those do not cover preventing discovery for statements issued outside of confession.

(10-19-2014 11:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 12:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom apparently does not comprehend the basic legal concept that yes, you can conduct discovery if sued, but that discovery must be limited to matters which are 1) at least potentially relevant to the litigation in question and 2) not protected by some privilege.
Yes, Tom, they are allowed to conduct discovery.
No, they should not be allowed to discover every sermon ever preached about homosexuality. This suit is about signatures on a petition, not about the pastors' position on homosexuality. Sermons about the petition would be relevant. Sermons about homosexuality, no. Does anyone have any doubt about any of these pastors' positions on homosexuality? As if that were an issue in this trial. Which it isn't.

Uh, when the petition is about homosexuality, the question becomes more obscure. There ARE protections for pastors, but those do not cover preventing discovery for statements issued outside of confession.

No it doesn't. And the petition isn't about the Mayor, but the discovery request included everything referring to her too. So even this attempted justification breaks down under scrutiny.

Isn't it curious that Tom sticks to the mentality that people from outside Houston city limits are barred from influencing their ordinances. Then like a light switch he's perfectly ok with outside parties regulating my gun ownership from thousands of miles away.

(10-19-2014 11:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, when the petition is about homosexuality, the question becomes more obscure.

Uh, no. The law doesn't change because of subject matter of litigation. Discovery is designed to focus on matters which may be relevant to the litigation. A sermon on homosexuality, particularly by a non-party, is not relevant to litigation over the legitimacy of signatures on a petition. Disagree? Fine, start your argument by describing something that might be contained in a sermon on homosexuality preached by a non-party that would be relevant to this litigation.

Quote:There ARE protections for pastors, but those do not cover preventing discovery for statements issued outside of confession.

Uh, no, no, no. Protestant pastors normally do not conduct formal confession, but many of their communications are still protected by privilege. And even in denominations that do conduct confessions, much outside those confessions is still protected. I would assume that the objective here is to discover communications with parishioners who have, say, a gay son or daughter, and then use that information to out those individuals. That has a lot to do with intimidation, but nothing to do with the subject matter of this litigation.

(10-17-2014 11:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, quit claiming that this is about preventing discovery. You know that you are lying by trying to mischaracterize it that way.
You can conduct discovery when you sue or are sued. There are rules to prevent that discovery process from being abused for the purposes of harassment and intimidation. The city attorney has admitted that those subpoenas broke those rules. What part of that do you not get?

Meh, Feldman is simply just amending the discovery petition to ask for the same thing. Riggle will have to send over a lot of sermons to comply with the amended discovery petition.
Riggle and Welsh dedicated a large portion of their time to supporting firing Gay people from their jobs during the HERO debate. I'm not sure that the amended discovery filing won't cover all their sermons.

Or maybe not. Ok, actually not.

Quote:Persuaded by clergymen from across the country that she had entered a raging national debate on religious freedom she wanted no part of, Mayor Annise Parker on Wednesday agreed to withdraw controversial subpoenas the city issued to five local pastors in connection with a lawsuit over Houston's equal rights ordinance.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/...855458.php

Yes, these are the amended, allegedly more narrowly targeted, subpoenas that have been withdrawn.

Quote:Parker's decision represented the only viable political option, said University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a specialist in religious liberty law. Seeking so much material was inflammatory, he said, adding that much of what the city seeks can be obtained through other means.

"There was so little that seemed relevant and legitimate," he said, "they were better to just completely withdraw them."

But he's just another right-wing nutjob trying to fight against the tide of history, so who cares what he thinks.

Quote:He co-wrote an amicus brief in last year’s blockbuster United States v. Windsor, arguing that states should all afford citizens the right to same-sex marriage.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...ginia.html

Oops.

(10-17-2014 11:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, you know as well as I do that the subpoenas went far, far beyond anything that might reasonably be construed as legitimate attempt to discover information bearing any relevance to the matter at hand. And if you don't know that, I would invite your attention to the words of the city attorney admitting precisely that.

Overbroad discovery requests are a fact of life in any litigation. They violate an attorney's ethical duties as an officer of the court. They should be sanctioned more often that they are, the shortfall probably resulting because attorneys don't move for sanctions in fear that they will subject themselves to sanctions should they try the same trick in another matter. When such overbroad requests come from any governmental unit, they should be particularly suspect as harassment and intimidation. Whoever sent these out should spend 60 in the county lockup for abuse of discovery.

Riggle and Welsh, and can fight the discovery citations in court. They initiated litigation here, most likely from their mansions outside of the Houston City Limits.

The lawsuit is frivolous. The discovery is valid. The city has a right to establish what communication was going on to the petition gatherers, much of what we already have proof that they KNEW what the rules were before they violated those rules anyway. The City didn't decide to run a petition campaign out of a church and from a pulpit. That communication is valid as a source of discovery.

Quick question, how would you have felt if Dr. King had gotten a similarly overbroad subpoena from the City of Montgomery in 1963?

I would have been dancing in the streets if all MLK Jr and his supporters had gotten was an "overbroad" subpoena. The ideological fathers of today's southern right-wing gave Dr. King and his supporters a whole lot more than that. It's ridiculous to even remotely equate an "overbroad" subpoena with firehoses, attack dogs, billy clubs, unjust arrests, and lynchings. You should apologize.