City of Houston Subpoena's Sermons From Pastors

[bonnie]

By Jessica Willey

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:25PM

HOUSTON (KTRK) --

The City of Houston wants sermons from pastors engaged in the legal battle over the controversial equal rights ordinance.

In a subpoena to five members of the Houston Area Pastors Council, the city is requesting a long list of documents and communications. Among them are "all speeches, presentations, or sermons" related to the Equal Rights Ordinance and "all communications with members of your congregation" regarding it and the failed petition against it. 

It is the city's latest move as it defends itself against a lawsuit filed in August requesting the ordinance be suspended. 

Pastor Hernan Castano received a subpoena and believes his sermons are protected by the First Amendment.

"For a city government to step into churches and ask pastors to turn in sermons, it's gone too far. This is not what America, the nation is about," he told Eyewitness News.

The fight over the anti-discrimination ordinance that passed in May has included protests and petition drives. Thousands of signatures were deemed invalid, which led to the lawsuit. 

Some signatures were acquired at churches which make the sermons fair game, according to City Attorney Dave Feldman.

"If they choose to do this inside the church, choose to do this from the pulpit, then they open the door to the questions being asked," Feldman said.

Monday -- the plaintiffs, former Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill and activist Steven Hotze, along with Pastor F.N. Williams Sr. and Pastor Max Miller -- filed a motion to quash the subpoenas calling them "overly-broad" and "harassment."

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

A subpoena, without the enforcement of a court, is of little value/concern.  On a routine basis they are quashed.  They are often issued with no legal basis for enforcement as one who requests a subpoena is not required to demonstrate a legal justification.

 

My review of the OP is that there are grounds to quash the subpoena due to 1st Amendment issues and prior case law.

[bonnie]

A subpoena, without the enforcement of a court, is of little value/concern.  On a routine basis they are quashed.  They are often issued with no legal basis for enforcement as one who requests a subpoena is not required to demonstrate a legal justification.

 

My review of the OP is that there are grounds to quash the subpoena due to 1st Amendment issues and prior case law.

Many things begin with small seemingly insignificent steps

[joeb]

A subpoena, without the enforcement of a court, is of little value/concern.  On a routine basis they are quashed.  They are often issued with no legal basis for enforcement as one who requests a subpoena is not required to demonstrate a legal justification.

 

My review of the OP is that there are grounds to quash the subpoena due to 1st Amendment issues and prior case law.

 

To me the point of this all is that we have another Democrat politician wanting to completely destroy our Constitution so she can push her own agenda.  I'd say anyone who thinks the Democrats aren't willing to destroy our Constitution for political gain has their head stuck firmly in the sand.  

[JoeMo]

Never mind; Houston backed down.  Gregory predicted it.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/29/houston-mayor-drops-bid-to-subpoena-pastors-sermons/

[bonnie]

Never mind; Houston backed down.  Gregory predicted it.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/29/houston-mayor-drops-bid-to-subpoena-pastors-sermons/

With out the publicity and the resulting outrage would the outcome have been the same?

How long before the state is successful in steps like this,or do you believe it will never happen. Generally it takes more than one try to pierce the protective barrier in anything. It may seem like a good idea to you but I certainly would not want my young granddaughters in a bathroom with adult men dressed as women

 

 

 column on the issue sparked a bit of national outrage – well – a lot of national outrage. To be honest it was a full-scale hullabaloo. City Hall was deluged with telephone calls, letters, emails – along with hundreds of Bibles and sermons. More than 50,000 supporters signed a petition.

Nevertheless, the mayor still seems hell-bent on defending the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance – a piece of legislation that will in part give grown men who identify as women the right to use the restrooms of their choice.

[JoeMo]

With out the publicity and the resulting outrage would the outcome have been the same?

How long before the state is successful in steps like this,or do you believe it will never happen. Generally it takes more than one try to pierce the protective barrier in anything. It may seem like a good idea to you but I certainly would not want my young granddaughters in a bathroom with adult men dressed as women

I didn't say it will never happen I said it didn't happen in Houston in this particular instance.  It probably will eventually happen somewhere; and when it does, it will be sad.

 

I didn't say it was a good idea, either; I don't want to be in a bathroom with women; and I don't want any of the women in my life in a bathroom with other men.  How do you even infer such rubbish?

[Gregory Matthews]

I have lived in a country where the bathrooms often were coed.  Get used to it.

 

Bathrooms are not erotic.

[bonnie]

I didn't say it will never happen I said it didn't happen in Houston in this particular instance.  It probably will eventually happen somewhere; and when it does, it will be sad.

 

I didn't say it was a good idea, either; I don't want to be in a bathroom with women; and I don't want any of the women in my life in a bathroom with other men.  How do you even infer such rubbish?

As Gregory says,get used to it. This was more than co-ed bathrooms. It is will happen instead of probably. 

Instead of walking all over the majority of people that object to having to use bathroom facilities at the same time as the opposite sex,have male and female and transgender facilities. That does not satisfy the agenda of this very powerful group

Bathroom facilities can be for both but usually are single occupant at a time.

[JoeMo]

Bathrooms are not erotic.

LOL - I'll say!  If anything, they're pretty much the opposite.

[Gregory Matthews]

It is already here.  Many public places have three (3) bathrooms--Male, female & family.

 

Also, I am seeing more bathrooms where both males and females are welcomed--often single person, but big enough for several..

 

NOTE:  All of the above applies to the United States where I live.

.

 

Get used to it.

[bonnie]

It is already here.  Many public places have three (3) bathrooms--Male, female & family.

 

Also, I am seeing more bathrooms where both males and females are welcomed--often single person, but big enough for several..

 

NOTE:  All of the above applies to the United States where I live.

.

 

Get used to it.

MN has had unisex bathrooms for sometime now. So?  That really wasn't the point or saying it shouldn't be that way. If someone has access to the restroom of their choice and they choose unisex,that is their privilege and problem.

School children are being forced to share a restroom with those that claim transgender.

Many service stations have one restroom for both men and women. They are single occupant.

Many of us would not choose to send our children into a restroom of the opposite sex,some don't care. So give them their own restroom and quit trying to force others 

[Gregory Matthews]

How much of a problem is this?

 

I earned my way through the Andrews University Seminary by cleaning bathrooms in the college classroom buildings.

 

The female students and staff had no problem with my being in the bathroom doing what I was paid to do.  Generally they paid no attention to me and I never paid any attention to them.

 

Yes, there might be 6 to 10 women in the bathroom with me.  Yes, there is safety in numbers, I suppose.  But, I did that for about two (2) years and never once was there a complaint.

[bonnie]

How much of a problem is this?

 

I earned my way through the Andrews University Seminary by cleaning bathrooms in the college classroom buildings.

 

The female students and staff had no problem with my being in the bathroom doing what I was paid to do.  Generally they paid no attention to me and I never paid any attention to them.

 

Yes, there might be 6 to 10 women in the bathroom with me.  Yes, there is safety in numbers, I suppose.  But, I did that for about two (2) years and never once was there a complaint.

There are those that believe when the GBLTQ demands,they should receive.

We had a cleaning crew cleaning the store and restrooms every morning.Many times men were the ones cleaning restrooms.The difference was that the bathroom door was propped open with a notice.If you chose to use it anyway you knew in advance a man was there with you. This is something you see in many places.

I would not want to send my young teen granddaughter into a mens restroom,anymore than I would want her forced to use a restroom without knowing a man was in there dressed as a woman. I would prefer to send her to a woman's restroom used by women instead of a restroom used by both

[Gregory Matthews]

And, when I cleaned the restroom, it was always signed. 

 

The women were adults and they had a choice.

 

No.   I did not dress as a woman! 

 

There was never any question that I was a male. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I wonder what the transgender students do when it comes to locker rooms and showers after PE...

[bonnie]

And, when I cleaned the restroom, it was always signed. 

 

The women were adults and they had a choice.

 

No.   I did not dress as a woman! 

 

There was never any question that I was a male. 

Transgenders do not sign in do they? Not all females using a public restroom are adults and they do not have a choice if the male is dressed as a woman.

Transgenders do dress in dress opposite. 

There is a question now if that female using the restroom with you is male or female.

[Bill Cork]

There was a lot of misinformation on this case.  People acted as if the Mayor was subpoenaing sermons from lots of pastors in town. No, the subpoena only involved five pastors. The City was the defendant in a lawsuit brought by opponents of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (which does NOT allow people to go to bathrooms of the other sex).  A petition drive was organized to bring it to the ballot.  Before the City ruled on the validity of the signatures, the petition organizers threatened a very aggressive lawsuit if there were any issues.  The petition was rejected because the City attorney informed the city clerk that many of the petition circulators did not sign the petition themselves, or were not valid signers (residents of the City of Houston). So those pages were thrown out.  The opponents then said the City Attorney had no business advising the city on this, and should have stayed out of it.  So they sued the City.  The organizers of this were folks well known in Houston conservative circles; the petition drive was pushed by members of the politically active Houston Area Pastors Council.  The subpoenas were part of the discovery process.  They City's lawyers issued broad subpoenas of key leaders in the petition drive, to gather evidence of what they said about the petition, how they organized the petition drive, etc.  This is what happens in a lawsuit--this process protects the rights of defendants.  Attorneys generally go on fishing expeditions, and judges often rule on whether they've gone to far.  In this case, it never got to the judge--the rightwing media turned this into a tale of a liberal mayor persecuting poor innocent pastors and took to the media, and some typical organizations that raise money by screaming about threats to fundamentalist freedoms got into the act and probably made an awful lot of money on this.   Moral: If you don't want to be subject to a discovery process, don't sue.

Ironically, the Equal Rights Ordinance also includes much-need religious liberty protections for our very diverse religious communities in the Houston area.  Churches aren't persecuted here--but some Sikhs were bullied by sheriff's deputies when they reported a burglary in their home a couple years ago.  The deputies came, bullied the family, made anti-Islam comments, etc.  A newly elected sheriff, who had not taken office yet, had that as his first issue to tackle.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bill, your comments are valuable from the standpoint of one who has lived in Houston, you have an awareness of the local situation that others may not have.  In addition, your comments related to attorney fishing expeditions are right on target.

 

My focus in this is on another aspect of this issue.  Under the provisions of the First Amendment and established case law, there was just about no possibility that the action against the churches would succeed and they would be required to produce the documents.

[Bill Cork]

I'm not so sure. These are public documents, and they were talking about public issues that they had litigated. There is no privileged communication when it comes to such things.

But as I mentioned, in a discovery process lawyers always engage in fishing expeditions. I was asked in a discovery process to produce sermons once (a suit against the Lutheran church's Board of Pensions). I didn't.  They didn't push.

And I think we need to be very careful of terminology. It wasn't an action against the churches--it was defendants making a discovery request of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit. That's different than supposing that the City was going after pastors.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bill, as you said, privileged communication was not involved.  You are correct in your comment about the discovery process.

 

Upon further review of the opening post, I can see a possibility for the request to pass legal muster. 

 

However, the 1st Amendment does give some very broad protections.  But, it also has its boundaries.   So, as to what might have happened if this had been litigated on the basis of the 1st amendment, I do not know.   I have a leaning to say that the 1st amendment would have covered it.  But, I may be wrong.

 

Anyway, it is good to have your here posting.