Texas Group facing jail time for signing a petition!

Its getting more and more "in your face. A group of Christians in El Paso, TX signed a petition objecting to a local ruling that same sex marraiges be given benefits.

Not only did the mayor stop try to stop elections, but he is now " investigating" (criminally!) the signers of the petition. Here are a few excerpts from www.wnd.com...

“El Paso citizens should not live in fear of being arrested and jailed for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster, who argued before the appeals court on Jan. 24 in Cook v. Tom Brown Ministries.

"The issue arose when voters in November 2010 placed on the ballot and passed an ordinance prohibiting unmarried domestic partner benefits in their city.

Several members of the city council refused to follow the will of the vote, and voted to rescind the ordinance approved by voters. The mayor joined in the effort."

"~Then the Court of Appeals for the 8th District took up the mayor’s cause and ordered the election stopped and the petition signatures decertified. Almost immediately, El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza subpoenaed the petitions and convened a grand jury to proceed with possible criminal indictment of those behind the petition effort."

PLEASE.. dont let this thread become an argument about whether gays should have benefits or not, but rather about the horror of this situation, it could be coming to your town next.

reply to post by Nana2


It shows the power of the gay lobby and how deep it runs up the government , If the system works then these people that overstepped their bounds should loose thief jobs and or be held both criminally and civilly liable .

This case will set a precedent for many years to come, if this group loses. If a citizen objects to soemthing the local governement did or wants to do, then jailtime is possible, it will used as a "case law" precedent in many other such cases.

I am not a Christian, I dont follow the teachings etc, but to jail Americans for expressing their opinions is outrageous! So , for me, it isn't about the SUBJECT, it is about freedom of speech, is it really this far gone here?

reply to post by Nana2


I find it compelling that ATS is not all over this thread , this is indicative of many Americans attitudes , of it does not effect them directly hen who cares. This also how the powers that be continue to rape this nation enacting all these stifling laws slowly eroding our freedoms replaced with the illusion of a false security.

Having read the article and then going on to read the opinion of the court the following can be stated:

This is a case where the person(s) and organization did the incorrect action. This is not about anti religion, or anti-Christian, but about where one group failed to observe the law when it comes to doing a recall vote. The justices examined the claims of both sides, looked very carefully at the law and all precedents set before this case, and came to the conclusion that the group was wrong. Now it seems that the side that lost is still trying to fight, even though in a court, they lost.

Being civic minded is not a bad thing, nor is being faithful, however, the way that they decided to go about is just as important as the act itself. In this case, they failed to follow all of the laws and are being punished, not cause their claims are just or if they are right or wrong, but procedure and law must be followed. We are a nation of laws, and be it if we like it or not, we have to follow those laws. Do we ignore one set of laws, failing to follow them cause they are inconvenient or do we follow them no matter what and seek to change those laws with in the structures provided? The structure for challenging the laws are very clear cut, and while it may take a bit to get the laws rescinded or changed, it is possible and ultimately what is the uproar over? One group that does not like another group wants to take away benefits to them, the start of discrimination. After all of the lawsuits out there, you would think that they would have found a more clever way to do this, or even tried to do something unique, like wait till 2013, when the mayor was no longer up for the office, and could no longer hold it and put people in that would support their view point. After all that would probably have been a lot easier, saved a lot of money and ultimately would have been much more productive than the way that they did it.

And if they are continuing said actions, after everything has settled, and are trying to continue on their illegal actions, should those charged with governing ignore that fact, or to take steps and ultimately stop them? This is not a case of those who are of one faith being persecuted, it is a case of those who are of one faith breaking the law and are now under the eye of the public, the courts and the justice system.

It isn't the power of the gay lobby
thats just an excuse to take away your rights by picking on a group that the jesus people HATE..
(not that hard to find ...the jesus love people seem to hate alot of people)
like picking on smokers or drinkers and drivers

I have a christian buddy
Its all conservatives all the time with him non stop.....LIBERALS are EVIL
he railed and railed about the gay lobby here in Canada getting a law passed preventing homeschoolers from denigrating gays while teaching in the home

so I looked up who sponsered this bill (In Alberta the conservative bastion of the "free world"
CONSERVATIVES?

who passed the bill? The CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY in the government of Alberta Legislature...
who's bichin a bout it?
CONSERVATIVES

but it is all about getting onto the home and illiminating free speech by using a scapegoat people so the slower people will go along with lynching themselves

reply to post by Nana2


This ignores an even bigger question:

What gives these people the right to "decide" this for their community?

What happened to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Or does that only apply to straight, Christian folks in this country?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having read the article and then going on to read the opinion of the court the following can be stated:

This is a case where the person(s) and organization did the incorrect action. This is not about anti religion, or anti-Christian, but about where one group failed to observe the law when it comes to doing a recall vote. The justices examined the claims of both sides, looked very carefully at the law and all precedents set before this case, and came to the conclusion that the group was wrong. Now it seems that the side that lost is still trying to fight, even though in a court, they lost.

Being civic minded is not a bad thing, nor is being faithful, however, the way that they decided to go about is just as important as the act itself. In this case, they failed to follow all of the laws and are being punished, not cause their claims are just or if they are right or wrong, but procedure and law must be followed. We are a nation of laws, and be it if we like it or not, we have to follow those laws. Do we ignore one set of laws, failing to follow them cause they are inconvenient or do we follow them no matter what and seek to change those laws with in the structures provided? The structure for challenging the laws are very clear cut, and while it may take a bit to get the laws rescinded or changed, it is possible and ultimately what is the uproar over? One group that does not like another group wants to take away benefits to them, the start of discrimination. After all of the lawsuits out there, you would think that they would have found a more clever way to do this, or even tried to do something unique, like wait till 2013, when the mayor was no longer up for the office, and could no longer hold it and put people in that would support their view point. After all that would probably have been a lot easier, saved a lot of money and ultimately would have been much more productive than the way that they did it.

And if they are continuing said actions, after everything has settled, and are trying to continue on their illegal actions, should those charged with governing ignore that fact, or to take steps and ultimately stop them? This is not a case of those who are of one faith being persecuted, it is a case of those who are of one faith breaking the law and are now under the eye of the public, the courts and the justice system.

Thank you for actually looking at the facts of this situation. I am saddened to see threads like this where someone jumps on the "they're out to get us" bandwagon without actually searching for the truth of the matter. Fake news organizations like WND should NOT be taken as absolute truth. Like other extreme groups (on the right and on the left), they will spin things to promote their agenda.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Nana2

 

This ignores an even bigger question:

What gives these people the right to "decide" this for their community?

What happened to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Or does that only apply to straight, Christian folks in this country?

Yep, it's definitely unconstitutional. I hope the Supreme Court gets to rule on this type of discrimination in the near future, so we can be done with all this crap.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Having read the article and then going on to read the opinion of the court the following can be stated:

This is a case where the person(s) and organization did the incorrect action. This is not about anti religion, or anti-Christian, but about where one group failed to observe the law when it comes to doing a recall vote. The justices examined the claims of both sides, looked very carefully at the law and all precedents set before this case, and came to the conclusion that the group was wrong. Now it seems that the side that lost is still trying to fight, even though in a court, they lost.

Being civic minded is not a bad thing, nor is being faithful, however, the way that they decided to go about is just as important as the act itself. In this case, they failed to follow all of the laws and are being punished, not cause their claims are just or if they are right or wrong, but procedure and law must be followed. We are a nation of laws, and be it if we like it or not, we have to follow those laws. Do we ignore one set of laws, failing to follow them cause they are inconvenient or do we follow them no matter what and seek to change those laws with in the structures provided? The structure for challenging the laws are very clear cut, and while it may take a bit to get the laws rescinded or changed, it is possible and ultimately what is the uproar over? One group that does not like another group wants to take away benefits to them, the start of discrimination. After all of the lawsuits out there, you would think that they would have found a more clever way to do this, or even tried to do something unique, like wait till 2013, when the mayor was no longer up for the office, and could no longer hold it and put people in that would support their view point. After all that would probably have been a lot easier, saved a lot of money and ultimately would have been much more productive than the way that they did it.

And if they are continuing said actions, after everything has settled, and are trying to continue on their illegal actions, should those charged with governing ignore that fact, or to take steps and ultimately stop them? This is not a case of those who are of one faith being persecuted, it is a case of those who are of one faith breaking the law and are now under the eye of the public, the courts and the justice system.

BIG picture entirely missed here. The CITIZENS voted against this measure to begin with (allowing same sex partners benefits) and the elected officials, went against their wishes. This church group jsut decided to challange that fact.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Nana2

 

This ignores an even bigger question:

What gives these people the right to "decide" this for their community?

What happened to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Or does that only apply to straight, Christian folks in this country?

Yep, it's definitely unconstitutional. I hope the Supreme Court gets to rule on this type of discrimination in the near future, so we can be done with all this crap.

Ummm, how about a little thing called the majority of voters? It was put to a vote, the majority of the people voted AGAINST it. Elected officials, a handful of the people that is, decided they wanted soemthing different from the MAJORITY. In most countries that is called SOCIALISM.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Thank you for actually looking at the facts of this situation. I am saddened to see threads like this where someone jumps on the "they're out to get us" bandwagon without actually searching for the truth of the matter. Fake news organizations like WND should NOT be taken as absolute truth. Like other extreme groups (on the right and on the left), they will spin things to promote their agenda.

Ah jeez, who died and made you god over what is fake and what is not? The WND story is simply stating what has already been printed elsewhere. What makes it fake? Because you disagree with it? I really hoped this thread could have been as I asked and not turned into anything except what it is , a handful of elected officials going against the majority of the people's wishes, and the dangerous precedent that this could set.

But noooo... once again liberals want to spin it as they wish to showcase an agenda.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Come on down out of your ivory tower. Just because its the law you know....

Originally posted by Nana2

Ummm, how about a little thing called the majority of voters? It was put to a vote, the majority of the people voted AGAINST it. Elected officials, a handful of the people that is, decided they wanted soemthing different from the MAJORITY. In most countries that is called SOCIALISM.

The majority of voters decided to ban interracial marriages in most states, until the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. Now interracial marriages are allowed in ALL states, as they should be.

In this case, this group went against proper procedures, so they got busted for it. When the Supreme Court rules that discrimination against gays is unconstitutional, this stuff will have to stop.

Originally posted by Nana2

I really hoped this thread could have been as I asked and not turned into anything except what it is , a handful of elected officials going against the majority of the people's wishes, and the dangerous precedent that this could set.

But noooo... once again liberals want to spin it as they wish to showcase an agenda.

No, you really hoped that everyone would agree with you on this thread, but that's not the way it works on ATS. You want everyone to agree with you, go post on some far-right forum.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Nana2

Ummm, how about a little thing called the majority of voters? It was put to a vote, the majority of the people voted AGAINST it. Elected officials, a handful of the people that is, decided they wanted soemthing different from the MAJORITY. In most countries that is called SOCIALISM.

The majority of voters decided to ban interracial marriages in most states, until the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. Now interracial marriages are allowed in ALL states, as they should be.

In this case, this group went against proper procedures, so they got busted for it. When the Supreme Court rules that discrimination against gays is unconstitutional, this stuff will have to stop.

Thanks for making my point so clearly. No matter WHAT the issue is, when the fed govt OVERiDES the states authority, as it has been slowly doing over the past years, a little at a time, we become a less free nation. And with this agenda, when the local authorities, who were ELECTED by the people deem themselves more of an authority than the people they represent, we lose even less freedom.

Our whole system was founded on WE THE PEOPLE. But I guess what I am hearing you say is, if we the people are too stupid to know what we want, then almighty god AKA government must step in ad "set us straight." Where does it end??? Exactly where communist countries end, with one ruler and the people walking lockstep, is that what you want?

What if the Feds had decided AGAINST inter-racial marriages, you are the kind that would be first in line to say exactly what I am saying about this TX situation, IE :the govt should not overirde the people's wishes.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Nana2

I really hoped this thread could have been as I asked and not turned into anything except what it is , a handful of elected officials going against the majority of the people's wishes, and the dangerous precedent that this could set.

But noooo... once again liberals want to spin it as they wish to showcase an agenda.

No, you really hoped that everyone would agree with you on this thread, but that's not the way it works on ATS. You want everyone to agree with you, go post on some far-right forum.

Thats just silly, it IS a discussion forum. Just asked that it not become an issue of "wrong or right" on the gay issue, but rather stick with the real meaning of the thread.

Originally posted by Nana2

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Nana2

 

This ignores an even bigger question:

What gives these people the right to "decide" this for their community?

What happened to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Or does that only apply to straight, Christian folks in this country?

Yep, it's definitely unconstitutional. I hope the Supreme Court gets to rule on this type of discrimination in the near future, so we can be done with all this crap.

Ummm, how about a little thing called the majority of voters? It was put to a vote, the majority of the people voted AGAINST it. Elected officials, a handful of the people that is, decided they wanted soemthing different from the MAJORITY. In most countries that is called SOCIALISM.

So if a majority of voters in the town voted against women being allowed to vote then poof they no longer have the right to vote? That is not the way it works in this country and you know it. Also do not use the word SOCIALISM when you clearly do not know what it means.

Whats the point of even having a vote? If they put something up for a vote and the people say no, then the government says well were doing it anyways then what does your vote even really matter?

They are not facing jailtime.
That article is taking it too far.
I live in El Paso and the fact of the matter is how the signatures were obtained. Allegedly they were taken illegally and that is what the Mayor is trying to rescind. However, this may go deeper and we may start talking about jailtime if things get dirty.