City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

[TechBoyJK]

LOL I think you just made my point. You like these knuckleheads have discrimatory views and call transgendered or gay people molesters which is false. But don't let me stop you from your perpetuation of lies. In addition the law they past is about not discriminating against gays, or people of color and women. If you read the articles on this Houston is one of few cities who didn't have anti-discrimination laws within their city. This Mayor is doing the right thing. But alas religious people...you know, no logic and all fanaticism.

Call me old fashioned, but I'm not sold on the idea that restrooms should be separated by gender instead of sex. If restrooms are to be separated by gender feelings, then what's the point of separating at all? Just make restrooms 'human' restrooms and call it a day.

I understand this is all about accepting the human form in all it's conditions, aka universal, unconditional acceptance, but at what point do you open the gate so wide that you open yourself to terrible risk? How many kids are going to get molested, not by genuinely gender confused people, but by some sicko that is going to say 'oh im a girl!' just to take advantage of the situation.

I personally would rather err on the side of making a guy, even if he thinks he's a woman at heart, continue to use the men's restroom because of sex, not gender.

 

[TechBoyJK]

This Mayor is doing the right thing. But alas religious people...you know, no logic and all fanaticism.

Even if you agree with HERO and what not, saying the Mayor is doing the right thing, at least in regards to the illegal subpoenas, simply tells me you don't understand the law. It's totally wrong. 100%. She should resign over this. I would have zero confidence in her administration at this point.

 

[OutHouse]

I love how you just cherry picked a few sentences to make obvious hyperbole.

my statement is in no way an exaggerated statement. what the mayor is doing is 100% against free speech. I honestly dont understand why you cant understand that fact.

 

[SMOGZINN]

How many kids are going to get molested, not by genuinely gender confused people, but by some sicko that is going to say 'oh im a girl!' just to take advantage of the situation.

What do you think was keeping them from doing this before this rule? Transgendered people have been using their gender's loo for as long as they have been transgendered people. Because it is practically impossible to stop them. What are you going to do, check if there is a penis under their dress before letting them in the restroom?

So, just in case you were not aware, before this law there was not a forcefield that prevented men in dresses from going into the women's room.

 

[02ranger]

Never heard of electioneering, huh?


I'd like to know why religious conservatives get apoplectic and frothy at the thought of their tax dollars being used to fund contraception and abortion services, yet expect non-christians to be fine with their tax dollars being used to promote and inject their dogma into the workings of state. Funny how that works.


Tax exemption for churches is bullshit, absolute bullshit. The good news is they don't need it - $144 billion in assets, $22 billion in annual income. I'm sure Bennie Hinn and Co. will find a way to keep their private jets and mansions. They'd be able to talk all they want about their most hated laws and the political bogeyman du jour, and the government will get the tax revenues it's needs to help fix the country. Win win win.


It'd be nice to see the IRS stop giving churches preferential treatment too. I seem to recall a lot of outrage over the IRS playing favorites recently, so I expect that's another thing we all could agree on.

Actually I never have heard of electioneering. I'll check it out.

I kinda feel like you took my question wrong, though. I wasn't asking because I thought they should be allowed to endorse political candidates, I was just genuinely curious cause I'd never heard the reason behind it. Thanks.

 

[bradley]

Bradley, you might want to examine your own links before posting them. " Subpoenas demanding internal church documentation and sermons (even in a civil ligation discovery) would represent an unprecedented violation.."

Yet in your link to the Houston chronicle on page 1 of this thread:

"Calling it an "unusual but not unprecedented" subpoena request, Rhodes said..."

I also love the use of the term Draconian too, really underscores what drama queens we're dealing with here. One of those "a thousand years of darkness!" if Obama gets re-elected things I guess.

As far as being unprecedented, I can't find any cases where religious clergy (as non-participants in a civil litigation) are subpoenaed for "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to (a City Council ordinance,) the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession." I know that even Mayor Parker believes "there's no question" the subpoenas as worded were "overly broad" -- and therefore draconian to me.

I support principles not politicization. I understand the history of the First Amendment as it relates to church autonomy and religious freedom. I support opposing and counterbalanced free speech, not bully pulpits meant to suppress speech and as such circumvent Constitutional laws.

I certainly don't support municipal City Council ordinances trumping the most basic freedoms contained within the Bill of Rights, as directly related to the Supremacy Clause. Therefore I have some interest in this story and its outcome.

 

[Victorian Gray]

When did I call transgendered or gay people molesters?

I did not say that. But that is how you took it.

There are molesters out there who will take advantage of these laws.

Yeah, I've read about the upsurge in the US of men dressed as women going in to women's bathrooms to rape and pillage. Truly a sad state of affairs. I hope your glorious Christian warriors manage to save the day.

 

[bradley]

Actually I never have heard of electioneering. I'll check it out.

I kinda feel like you took my question wrong, though. I wasn't asking because I thought they should be allowed to endorse political candidates, I was just genuinely curious cause I'd never heard the reason behind it. Thanks.

Churches cannot electioneer (directly endorse a candidate) or face losing their tax exempt status, however irrelevant to the actual charges in this case. FYI, churches can discuss candidates and laws as they relate to specific religious doctrine. They can also give indirect endorsements to any candidate supporting this doctrine. Individual members of the clergy can even endorse or raise funds for any candidate.

 

[Fern]

Odd, seeing as they are a favored target of the "pro-life" camp. Guess you don't get around in the South, or listen to talk radio. Regardless,

Where I live etc doesn't matter. I repeat, I don't hear complaints of them having exempt status. I hear complaints of them receiving direct financial support from the govt.

Churches do not receive direct financial support.

Planned Parenthood, as far as I know, has never sought to erode the separation of church and state, and are not involved in funding or advocating for people to have fewer rights.

This is your opinion clearly based upon your political ideology. E.g., Do you think liberal organization promoting gun safety etc are "advocating for people to have fewer rights"?

There is no real analog in Planned Parenthood for the corrupt financial largesse of the leadership either. People tend to care when those getting free rides or handouts start driving German sports car and own multiple houses. I'm sure you've come across this before.

You are overstating this to the point of ridiculousness. Very few churches have any kind of money. Even fewer have mega-pastors living large. BTW: Pastors (or whatever they call themselves) are taxed like other people working in a for profit business.

Ahhh, here's the part where I'm supposed believe that money isn't fungible. /facepalm

One exempt org gets nontaxable status PLUS direct financial support (i.e., cash money).

The other only gets nontax status.

If can't recognize the difference that's on you. (Actually I think can but choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.)

The above is very confused.

My analogy is apt. If you think otherwise explain.

Another of the issues, getting churches to give a complete and honest reckoning on their finances. Don't pretend to know what some politicians have been trying (in vain) to see for decades. When churches tell someone like the very conservative, very republican, very Baptist Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa, Ranking republican on the Senate Finance Committee) to pound sand over having to explain the finances behind abuses that went public, that should tell you something.

I have no idea what you're referring to.

And just as I suspected it would show up, here's the part of your post that makes me a little angry for taking the time to respond to you. Why? Because it's clear you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

IRS regulations : Churches are exempt from filing the no-bullshit 990 form which all other tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities must file, accounting for finances, ensuring that individuals do not profit and that money that is being raised under nonprofit auspices is being spent for nonprofit purposes.

Tax law, written by Congress does not require Form 990.

In administering tax law the IRS has required some to file Form 990. Most file a 990E (aka the postcard). Here is what must provided/answered:

1. Name
2. Fed ID
3. Address
4. Name of Person to contact
5. Do you have a website?

Hardly onerous.

Additionally, churches are automatically granted tax exemption status, because somehow they're not considered religiously-based nonprofit groups, which must file for exemption like other nonprofits.

Ever heard of the Constitution?

The 1st Amendment?

No other charitable type has the constitutional protection that churches do.

Can the IRS 'decide' if your religion is valid? The Constitution poses very serious problems here.

Can the IRS decide if your organization is 'educational'? Sure, and there are no constitutional problems as with religion. (You problem seems to be with the Constitution.)

This is not the IRS's doing. (In addition, there are estimated to be between 350,000 - 450,000 churches with a mean attendance of 75. I.e., half the number of churches are even smaller. Do you think the IRS even wants to process about 200,000 forms from dinky churches, even if only the postcard, for such small potatoes? There's a reason individuals making below a certain are exempted from filing.) Why would the IRS even want to bother with this?

Fern

 

[kage69]

Yeah, I've read about the upsurge in the US of men dressed as women going in to women's bathrooms to rape and pillage. Truly a sad state of affairs. I hope your glorious Christian warriors manage to save the day.

Keep in mind, these are the same guys who howled with laughter when anti-gun types sighed with relief when signs forbidding the carrying of guns were displayed on people's lawns, businesses, restaurants, etc. The naivete one must have to believe that criminals intent on theft, assault, arson, rape, or murder will suddenly obey piece of paper hanging in a window is pretty astounding IMO.

That many in the same crowd are now taking the exact opposite position wrt to this bathroom/gender issue is a really sad comment on their intellectual honesty I think. Asking them to demonstrate harm caused by reading a transcript of speech that was open to the public is really reaching I suppose. Like Voter fraud, or this recent myth about sex predators seeking out unisex bathrooms. There not a problems, but like hell that's going to stop some from concocting themselves a politically convenient fix for it anyway.

Hiding behind fabricated issues and bullshit is easier than dealing with the real problems, as religious conservatives prove again and again. I think these pastors don't want their sermons reviewed for the same reason anti-gay business owners who won't serve homosexuals don't put notices stating such on their doors (but will chastise others who display support or do business with gays). Outspoken moral crusaders don't just want free speech, they want consequence free speech, legislated dogma, and a side of no accountability. And we all get to pay for it.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Justice Douglas correctly identified the exemption as a subsidy in Walz v. Tax Commission, and I agree with his dissent in that tax exemption would be appropriate were the church performing some kind of role for the state. Electioneering and fighting civil rights is not my idea of a church helping the state out with a service and receiving a tax break for it. YMMV.

Then Justice Douglas if a freakin idiot.

A church is a pooling of resources by a community for a nonprofit purpose.

Your problem is you are clouded by your hate of religion.

Other, nonreligious, nonprofit pooling of resources for a community are also exempt. E.g., if your neighborhood HOA requires contributions from the neighbors to build sidewalks that is tax exempt. Unless you think you can discriminate against religious purposes, and the Constitution prevents that, you'd have to make HOA orgs etc also taxable. That's not only contrary to public policy, it's downright stupid in the context of income tax. There isn't any "income'.

Fern

 

[Texashiker]

Electioneering and fighting civil rights is not my idea of a church helping the state out with a service and receiving a tax break for it. YMMV.

Some perv hiding a camera in the girls bathroom is not a civil right.

If a transgender has to make sacrifices to ensure the safety of a child, so be it.





*not that transgenders are pervs, but there are people out there who will abuse this law.

 

[Fern]

Provided you're a christian who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state anyway.
-snip-

I have to wonder if you be as supportive of the city's subpoenas if they were aimed a newspaper who opposed a govt policy?

Fern

 

[piasabird]

Some of the pastors they requested this information on are not even part of the law suit.

 

[piasabird]

I would use a different tactic on this. I would have ever member of the church request for information from the mayor and the city under the freedom of information act.