Houston Demands Pastors Turn Over Sermons

[Cow Poke]

meanwhile, here is the motion to quash filed by ADF.

[Sparko]

From the Houston Chronicle...

Source: Chron

The subpoenas were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas.

Plaintiff Jared Woodfill said the subpoena impinges on protected religious freedoms.

"This is the city trampling on the First Amendment rights of pastors in their churches," Woodfill said.

The city attorney's office has not responded to requests for comment.

© Copyright Original Source

I am a charter member of the Alliance Defending Freedom, so I've been getting their alerts on this. This is absolutely astounding. The homosexual community doesn't want equality -- they want CONTROL.

They also tossed out a 50,000 signature petition claiming that most of the signatures were invalid. riiiiiight. I hope this leads to a huge lawsuit against Houston and gets the Mayor impeached and maybe even tossed into jail.

[Cow Poke]

They also tossed out a 50,000 signature petition claiming that most of the signatures were invalid. riiiiiight. I hope this leads to a huge lawsuit against Houston and gets the Mayor impeached and maybe even tossed into jail.

Yes, that's a WHOLE 'NUTHER battle showing the incredible anti-Christian bias of the liberals in charge of the city of Houston.

[Zymologist]

What possible justification can there be for this subpoena?

[seer]

What possible justification can there be for this subpoena?

Does that matter to the left?

[Spartacus]

What possible justification can there be for this subpoena?

The implicit threat, I think, is to the tax-exempt status of these churches. Ever since the middle of the last century, when Lyndon Johnson felt so politically threatened by churches that he looked for a way to shut them up, churches' tax-exempt status is based on them not making explicit endorsements of parties, candidates, or policies to their congregations. Basically, churches can't tell their congregations which way to vote. To the extent that these subpoenas have any legal basis whatsoever, it's probably in trying to ascertain whether these pastors violated those regulations.

I think there are churches that regularly violate these regulations without consequence (e.g. Jeremiah Wright, and probably not a few churches on the Right as well), but I could be wrong about that.

[robrecht]

What possible justification can there be for this subpoena?

Perhaps they are challenging the tax-exempt status of churches engaging in non-exempt political action to oppose or overturn a specific ordinance. If this is the case, they would not be challenging the right to freedom of speech but investigating the validity of their tax exempt status.

[robrecht]

Great minds think alike. Wow, I'm now in Smarticus' league!

[mossrose]

Perhaps they are challenging the tax-exempt status of churches engaging in non-exempt political action to oppose or overturn a specific ordinance. If this is the case, they would not be challenging the right to freedom of speech but investigating the validity of their tax exempt status.

It is better to obey God rather than man. And pastors are to preach the WHOLE of scripture. Not cherry pick whatever the state thinks they should preach. Although many already do that, wrongly.

[Bill the Cat]

What possible justification can there be for this subpoena?

Rod-Smart-He-Hate-Me-Las-Vegas-Outlaws-2001-XFL.jpg

[Teallaura]

What possible justification can there be for this subpoena?

Legal? There isn't one. Political? Trying to protect the 'anti-discrimination' ordinance they recently enacted.

[Spartacus]

Great minds think alike. Wow, I'm now in Smarticus' league!

But Teal disagrees with us, so obviously we're both wrong

[Teallaura]

Perhaps they are challenging the tax-exempt status of churches engaging in non-exempt political action to oppose or overturn a specific ordinance. If this is the case, they would not be challenging the right to freedom of speech but investigating the validity of their tax exempt status.

The subpoena is way too broad for that.

[Teallaura]

But Teal disagrees with us, so obviously we're both wrong

I didn't disagree - it's probably part of the picture. But that's Fed, not local so if it were the actual main objective they would have called the IRS instead.

[Christianbookworm]

Why is it such a problem that we say that homosexual relations are sinful? Promiscuity is a sin and no one makes a big deal about that. It really doesn't matter unless you are a Christian that an act is a sin.