Houston's Mayor Parker.........Kinda Forgets About the 1st Amendment

I have been a supporter of Mayor Parker in the past, she knows that the Business of Houston IS business.

But I think she might have stepped in a pile of dog shit with this latest LGBT ploy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-over-sermons/

We have a thing in this Country called The Constitution, and the 1st Amendent surely covers what she is doing. The Pulpit, and the Pastors that speak from it, is sacred ground to many.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Mayor Parker has made no secret that after she is term limited out of being Mayor, she does inspire to higher State Office.

Well, this is still Texas. And this type of shenanigans won't go over too well with the majority of Texas Voters.

She is just another criminal Democrat.

I find this quite interesting, and have some mixed views. It is not as simple as it seems on first reading.

On one hand I completely disagree with the mayor or the courts demanding to see what pastors say. That seems like an egregious imposition on free speech and religious freedom. There is something inherently wrong about it.

But I also have issues with a minister of any sort who, speaking to their congregation, is embarrassed/unwilling to share that message with the broader populous. I guess I like to believe in the minister who believes in the righteousness of their convictions and preaches to the sinners as well as the believers. Why should they not VOLUNTARILY make their sermons available if they believe their own message? This too seems inherently wrong, and pulls me in the exact opposite direction.

Finally, I wonder how I would feel if the suspected sermons didn't deal with homosexuality issues, but they were an imam speaking about the moral ills of America, and the inherent right of muslims to support a just jihad? I guess the difference between these two is less clear than I would like it to be.

An interesting topic. I truly don't like any of the conclusions it leads me to. Thanks for posting it.

So what's going to happen to priests, ministers, etc when they refuse to perform gay marriages?

Finally, I wonder how I would feel if the suspected sermons didn't deal with homosexuality issues, but they were an imam speaking about the moral ills of America, and the inherent right of muslims to support a just jihad? I guess the difference between these two is less clear than I would like it to be.
Originally Posted by Old-T

I've heard from a mosque attendee these types of khutbahs have been going on in Houston frequently post 9/11.

I find this quite interesting, and have some mixed views. It is not as simple as it seems on first reading.

On one hand I completely disagree with the mayor or the courts demanding to see what pastors say. That seems like an egregious imposition on free speech and religious freedom. There is something inherently wrong about it.

But I also have issues with a minister of any sort who, speaking to their congregation, is embarrassed/unwilling to share that message with the broader populous. I guess I like to believe in the minister who believes in the righteousness of their convictions and preaches to the sinners as well as the believers. Why should they not VOLUNTARILY make their sermons available if they believe their own message? This too seems inherently wrong, and pulls me in the exact opposite direction.

Finally, I wonder how I would feel if the suspected sermons didn't deal with homosexuality issues, but they were an imam speaking about the moral ills of America, and the inherent right of muslims to support a just jihad? I guess the difference between these two is less clear than I would like it to be.

An interesting topic. I truly don't like any of the conclusions it leads me to. Thanks for posting it. Originally Posted by Old-T

The sermons have nothing to do with the case. It is just unethical delaying tactics.

I've heard from a mosque attendee these types of khutbahs have been going on in Houston frequently post 9/11. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I am sure they are. And that is why I asked the question. Do those speeches fall in the same general category as homosexual related speeches in a church from a free speach POV? I want to say "no", but I am hard pressed to find a legitimate reason to say that.

My leaning is that either both are protected or neither.

There is a city in the Midwest where there is a significant "debate" going back and forth between the speakers at two mosques. One supporting a militant view, one opposing it. I have attended two services at the latter as a guest--a very interesting experience--and think it would be good to have much more openness about these voices--on both sides. I think it would be very enlightening for those who see muslims as a single borg-like mind. Just as we do with so many other groups.

Privacy is good for some things, but openness is often better. I think in this case I want all the sermons free to say what they want, but then available for all to see/read.

The sermons have nothing to do with the case. It is just unethical delaying tactics. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I am confused. If the issue is what was said in the sermons, how do they have nothing to do with it?

She is just another criminal Democrat. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Of which crime has she been convicted, dipshit?

I do find it ironic that when the church demands prayer in school, it's not a violation of the separation of church and state, but when the tables are turned, it is.

Those boys is squealing like pigs!

I do not support the city's law or behavior. But I am also not surprised by all the high pitched squealing from the religious self-righteous.

It isn't just the Mayor; it is how most all Progressives act...they try to silence those they disagree with.

Look at the intolerance/political correctness at our universities - the holy ground of progressivism....

Funny how the "Berkeley Free Speech" movement has morphed into intolerance and censorship.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...0#.VD6BCrB4rYg

At most churches, the vast majority I would amagine, anybody, and everybody, is free to attend the services. If people want to hear what is being said, just go to a service.

Why doesn't the Mayor just go to some of these services, and listen? Would've that be more appropriate than the course of action she is taking?

One of the quirks of this whole mess is many of the Pastors that she is going after are Blacks. It is no secret that she has always enjoyed 90 percent support from the Black Community.

Like I said before, I have supported the Mayor on past issues, overall she has been good for Houston.

So pastors want to get involved in city politics but not have any blowback? They have front groups file lawsuits and then scream about separation of church and state.


After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.
The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

How long before Progressives sick the IRS on the Houston Churches ?

Hmmmm,
Gays demand equality and protection under the Constitution but attack pastors that are entitled to the same.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

So pastors want to get involved in city politics but not have any blowback? They have front groups file lawsuits and then scream about separation of church and state.


After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.
The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational. Originally Posted by WTF

Put it on a ballot and let the people of Houston decide.

They came up with three times the number of signatures needed to do that. Then the city claims only 15000 were valid because the people gathering the ballots were not registered voters or did not sign it themselves. When did being registered become a condition for voting in Houston? LOL