It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chamberf=6
Remember this is FOX News. When they hear the word gay they start babbling gibberish and foaming at the mouth.


Please link previous stories where they acted like you are describing.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TXTriker

Oh yeah, how could I forget (I grew up in Houston) - that city is full of homophobes that hate gays and transgenders. Dallas is a much more tolerant town. They passed laws on this back in 2002. Hell, even El Paso enacted laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- way back in 2003. Houston is way, way behind.

There are laws against perverts, so this ordinance doesn't give them a free pass. That's just Christian fundamentalist fear mongering right there. Lesbians can go into women's restrooms - nobody's more attracted to women than lesbians. Ooops



Must not have lived here in a while. If there are homophobes its not to the level you remember. Yes there are laws against perverts but this ordinance forbid any questioning of the persons claiming to be transgender. It was a violation subject to fine to question them. Dallas is only tolerant if your rich and white.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TXTriker



Yes there are laws against perverts but this ordinance forbid any questioning of the persons claiming to be transgender. It was a violation subject to fine to question them.


I'm sorry, but I just have trouble believing that a guy could walk into a women's restroom and start "pleasuring himself" in front of women - yet all he has to do is claim he's transgender and no one can do anything about it??? I don't think so. If you mean that a guy who is dressed like a girl walks in, does "her" business without looking at or bothering anyone can't be accused unfairly, or forced out of the restroom just because he has an adam's apple -- then yeah, I agree with the ordinance.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

No the ordinance does not require them to dress to their gender identification. All they have to do is say they are and no one is allowed to stop them.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: kaylaluv

No the ordinance does not require them to dress to their gender identification. All they have to do is say they are and no one is allowed to stop them.


A heterosexual man who isn't a pervert isn't going to purposefully walk in to the women's room. A heterosexual man who is a pervert is going to do or say something that will be against perversion laws (indecent exposure, taking pictures under the bathroom stalls, etc.). That's why he's called a pervert.

I'd like to see reports of all these evil perverts taking advantage of transgender non-discrimination laws already set up in other parts of the country.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
At the same time I wouldn't like to walk out of a bathroom stall and find a man roaming around the ladies restroom. To me it would kind of equate to walking down a dark alley alone at night. I'd feel just as open to assault.
And, I think that most women my age and older just might feel the same way. Call use prudes or whatever but we just wouldn't feel comfortable.

And well I've read the law and it seems that this is the only item in it that the federal laws don't already cover.
So well why the law?? Just curious. And well to be honest if I was a resturant owner I would be saving my pennies so I could just redo the restroom set up so I would have maybe four or so single restrooms and eliminate the stalls
Then well don't care who or what your are take your pick!



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
At the same time I wouldn't like to walk out of a bathroom stall and find a man roaming around the ladies restroom. To me it would kind of equate to walking down a dark alley alone at night. I'd feel just as open to assault.
And, I think that most women my age and older just might feel the same way. Call use prudes or whatever but we just wouldn't feel comfortable.

And well I've read the law and it seems that this is the only item in it that the federal laws don't already cover.
So well why the law?? Just curious. And well to be honest if I was a resturant owner I would be saving my pennies so I could just redo the restroom set up so I would have maybe four or so single restrooms and eliminate the stalls
Then well don't care who or what your are take your pick!


This.

There was no need for the ordinance.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




Lawsuits should not infringe on 1st Amendment rights, and this clearly has the air of intimidation.


So can I go into that church and drop a bunch of F-bombs?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Wow. You got a lot of stars for a post that is factually inaccurate.

There are no federal laws prohibiting non-discrimination in employment or public accommodation/housing based on sexual orientation.


There is no federal statute addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.


en.wikipedia.org...


Federal law prohibits discrimination in the rental, sale, advertising and financing of housing on the basis of your race, color, religion, gender, national origin, family status , i.e. having custody of a child under age 18 or disability.


www.peoples-law.org...

Do you see anything there that says no discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Non-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation vary by state. In states that have no such non-discrimination laws (like Texas), some cities have passed ordinances that don't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. Dallas, El Paso and Austin are three such cities. Now Houston is on board - except for the homophobes that are fighting it.

Have you really, truly read the ordinance? Here it is. Can you tell me what specifically you personally object to in the ordinance?

www.houstontx.gov...


edit on 18-10-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I knew what the law states (and it does cover much of the same protections as is protected by the federal level) But I thought the federal laws had gone farther than they have maybe??

as far as the ordinance itself I don't live in TX and have plans to never go back to texas so I am kind of neutral to the law..
really don't care much which direction any of the laws go when it comes to sexual orientation.
Although like I said I would feel a bit uneasy walking out of a shall and finding a man roaming around the restroom..

but unless it has changed police couldn't serve a warrent on me to search my house for a person and start diving into my dresser drawers looking for incriminating evidence to use against me for a crime completely unrelated to the one that the warrent was issued to address!
And I don't really see how the pastors sermons and other communications to their congregations could be related to how many signatures are on the petition.

But well let me explain to you why I don't ever want to go back to tx although my husband would love to move back there. last time I lived there I ran across discrimination of a different kind- gender discrimination...
I was applying everywhere for a job in the 80's which absolutely no results. finally people started tipping me off as to why that was so. Times were hard and there were many men unemployed and well those men had families to support the women had men to support them or danged well should have!!!

If you run across my posts often you know how I feel about this and how I feel about the church's teachings regarding women. To put it simply I don't like it!
I will try to reason with those who seem to adhere to it, try to explain how it has caused problems to the people in society, and even dive into the scriptures themselves in an attempt to convince them there is a problem
But in the end it is in the church doctrines and therefore is instilled into the hearts of some people. And they have the right to believe what they want. The churches have the right to preach what they want.
And we all have the right to act according to those beliefs.
And ain't no law that is gonna stop people from acting on those beliefs anyways. Yes there is a law that says we should get equal pay for equal work but then explain to me just how it is that a person can come into a company with no knowledge or experience whatsoever and earn a couple dollars more than someone who has been in the company for five years and has not only learned how to do the job they were hired to do efficiently but most of the other jobs in the place if it's no simply because the new employee is a man and therefore entitle to more simply because of that fact in the eyes of the employer. And even with the laws some still end up just living with the discrimination.
So well I just kind of stay away from those areas that I know has such attitudes imbedded deeply into the people.
And well take long vacations from the workforce every now and then when things get too outrageous.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kaylaluv



And I don't really see how the pastors sermons and other communications to their congregations could be related to how many signatures are on the petition.




Because their church's tax exempt status prohibits them from including political endorsements in their official sermons/communications to their congregation. If they were proven to have done this, the city has a case for invalidating the petition, because it would have gone against IRS law.

This has nothing to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with telling preachers they can't preach against homosexuality in general. It has to do with specific communications regarding a political petition which is involved in a lawsuit.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention. The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

en.wikipedia.org...


I'm not seeing where a petition against a law would be favoring one candidate or party over another I guess. We all have the right to petition the gov't. If the gov't made a law tomorrow banning one of the christian branches would they be allowed to discuss a petition that is against that law?
They are not in favor of the law and expressing that they are not supporting or not supporting any political candidate or group. It ain't their fault that some of the candidates are in favor of that law. And well I might like some candidates but then they might favor a law I detest but I might chose to still support them because that one law is only a small part of their overall actions in office.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

This is why both parties will have their day in court. The city will try to prove that: a) the pastors used their church sermons/communications to endorse the petition, and b) this is against IRS tax law, which renders the petition invalid.
The other side will try to prove that the petition is valid, using the legal means available to them. That's why this country is great. Both sides will have their say, and a judge will rule on it. That's how it works.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The last time I checked, church services, where sermons are usually given, are open to the public, right?

So, once a sermon/speech is given, the material, while still the intellectual property of it's creator or owner, should still be in the public domain, right?

Since when is a subpoena regarding material in the public domain burdensome or repressive?

Did Houston issued some kind of warrant for these pastors' arrest?

Has Houston locked any church-doors where these speeches were given?

Has Houston broken down the doors during any church service where these speeches are being given and started arresting folks?

As someone pointed out, Houston seems to have kow-towed to the religious extremists and are more specifically focusing their discovery requests, but still, come on do words have any meaning anymore?

No church has been repressed/suppressed/silenced; they're still free to practice and preach anti-equality messages all day long.
edit on 9Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:45:45 -050014p0920141066 by Gryphon66 because: Last line small edit



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: beezzer




Lawsuits should not infringe on 1st Amendment rights, and this clearly has the air of intimidation.


So can I go into that church and drop a bunch of F-bombs?


Actually, if you termed it "performance art against the patriarchal heterocage" you might get away with it and get to go on The View.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TXTriker
a reply to: kaylaluv

No the ordinance does not require them to dress to their gender identification. All they have to do is say they are and no one is allowed to stop them.



And that the point as to just how silly and idiotic all of this "gender identification" stuff has gotten. All man mountain Dean has to do is say "I'm a Woman now, call me Loretta" and everybody is expected to accommodate him and his whims.

It used to be that one had to be "living as the opposite gender" and going through the process of gender reassignment surgery before he/she got legal recognition--you know, showing that they were actually being sincere. Now, any crank can just declare himself what he wants to and everyone is expected to accommodate or else.
edit on 18-10-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I myself have had questions about the proliferation of the various "gender identification" issues we face culturally.

I would be the first to admit that, on it's face, it seems to be something that could be easily abused.

I also have to admit that at one point I was concerned about a psychopathic component in some extreme cases.

But then I did more reading, and met with some trans* folks, and saw that most of them are genuine in their convictions and identity.

Who am I to say? Who is anyone?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Who am I to say? Who is anyone?



Exactly. Which is why the state should not be in the business of mandating this or mandating that or protecting this class or that one. Leave private individuals, including business owners, the right to make their own choices on the subject.

I've worked with people who very sincerely believed with all of their heart, mind, and soul that they were Napoleon, just as fervently as you mention above. That is fine, as long as he's harmless, he can call himself Napoleon and wear a funny hat all day long for all I care. However, when the government mandates by law that I treat him as if he were the former French Emperor, then there is a problem. It is not being "anti-Napoleon" as it is being anti "government dictating everything."
edit on 18-10-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Yeah, this shouldn't happen. We all know that Christian Doctrine is anti homosexual, why would you need sermons at proof? This does go against the bill of rights, our constitution and our freedom of and from religion. The pendulum swings both ways, get the government out of the church and get the church out of the government.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Yeah, this shouldn't happen. We all know that Christian Doctrine is anti homosexual, why would you need sermons at proof? This does go against the bill of rights, our constitution and our freedom of and from religion. The pendulum swings both ways, get the government out of the church and get the church out of the government.


Since you mention the Constitution. Where in that document does it grant the government the power and authority to dictate to a private individual who may use what bathroom?

One side of this issue may very well be anti-gay bigotry. Cuthulu knows, I'm not a fan of evangelists. However, I see that many, in the face of that issue, are forgetting the even larger issue--that of an increasingly partisan and overbearing government.

That may be fine and dandy when "your team" is in charge and mandating things you agree with but, as you very clearly and wisely state, the pendulum swings both ways and when and if it swings the other way, do you really want to have given the state the power and precedent to dictate you to do things you don't want?
edit on 18-10-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)







 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join