PDA

View Full Version : Christians who signed petitions investigated



Retread
03-11-2012, 11:49 PM
"A prosecutor has decided to pursue and possibly charge members of El Paso area churches who promoted petitions opposing the city administration’s decision to implement benefits for same-sex partners even after voters decided not to allow that." (http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/christians-who-signed-petitions-investigated/)

NJCardFan
03-11-2012, 11:58 PM
"A prosecutor has decided to pursue and possibly charge members of El Paso area churches who promoted petitions opposing the city administration’s decision to implement benefits for same-sex partners even after voters decided not to allow that." (http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/christians-who-signed-petitions-investigated/)

So I guess this prosecutor is unfamiliar with the bill of rights?

Janice
03-12-2012, 01:31 AM
So I guess this prosecutor is unfamiliar with the bill of rights?

I suppose that if the countrys Attorney General can be ignorant of them ... hell, if the CIC can be ignorant or opposed to them, then so can local court morons. Hmm.. yes, even Justices oppose them now. I mean, its a little obvious to me. So.. whats left?

Ham and cheese?

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 02:08 AM
So some churches are pissed that they can't undo the will of the people in electing a municipal government that was within its powers and authority to enact domestic partner benefits for workplace fairness.

So a councilman, who is apparently heterosexual, delivered a major bitchslap to some hypocritical POS priest who is doing exactly what Catholics always say that they won't do if elected, ie practicing popery and false allegiance to the US Constitution.

Just summarizing, carry on.

JB
03-12-2012, 04:17 AM
So some churches are pissed that they can't undo the will of the people <snip>I'm not sure what article you are summarizing but it certainly wasn't the one linked in the OP.

Apache
03-12-2012, 05:20 AM
So some churches are pissed that they can't undo the will of the people in electing a municipal government that was within its powers and authority to enact domestic partner benefits for workplace fairness.

So a councilman, who is apparently heterosexual, delivered a major bitchslap to some hypocritical POS priest who is doing exactly what Catholics always say that they won't do if elected, ie practicing popery and false allegiance to the US Constitution.

Just summarizing, carry on.

really, princess?
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.

doesn't seem that way, now does it?

damn, more people who don't want your shit shoved down their throats, carry on...

txradioguy
03-12-2012, 05:28 AM
So some churches are pissed that they can't undo the will of the people in electing a municipal government that was within its powers and authority to enact domestic partner benefits for workplace fairness.

So a councilman, who is apparently heterosexual, delivered a major bitchslap to some hypocritical POS priest who is doing exactly what Catholics always say that they won't do if elected, ie practicing popery and false allegiance to the US Constitution.

Just summarizing, carry on.

No idiot...a city councilman with a Liberal agenda is appearently trying to intimidate residents of El Paso into silence.

noonwitch
03-12-2012, 12:05 PM
Charge them with what? It's not criminal to petition the government for something, even if it is something that is unpopular.

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 12:29 PM
Charge them with what? It's not criminal to petition the government for something, even if it is something that is unpopular.

I'm not familiar with the law in this case, but both Florida and Texas were founded with some serious concern about the Catholic Church. Florida's legal barrier to school vouchers, for instance, is that the founders of Florida did not want a single penny of state money being funneled to a Catholic Church. So the law is clear on that, and the Baptists in our own time have worked diligently to find a workaround.

Fla. Const. art. 1, § 3: "There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

TVDOC
03-12-2012, 04:25 PM
I'm not familiar with the law in this case, but both Florida and Texas were founded with some serious concern about the Catholic Church. Florida's legal barrier to school vouchers, for instance, is that the founders of Florida did not want a single penny of state money being funneled to a Catholic Church. So the law is clear on that, and the Baptists in our own time have worked diligently to find a workaround.

Fla. Const. art. 1, § 3: "There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

And what.......exactly.......does your remark have to do with this issue, which is:

1. The voters of this community rejected same-sex benefits for city workers

2. A rogue city councilman decided to launch legislation to override the will of the people.

3. Members of some churches circulated petitions supporting the will of the people which is their guaranteed constitutional right.

4. A public servant (prosecuter) decides to trump up some imaginary charges against the church members.

None of the above statements of fact have any correlation to your post.......are you on drugs??........ or just intentionally obtuse??


doc.

Novaheart
03-12-2012, 06:28 PM
And what.......exactly.......does your remark have to do with this issue, which is:

1. The voters of this community rejected same-sex benefits for city workers

2. A rogue city councilman decided to launch legislation to override the will of the people.

3. Members of some churches circulated petitions supporting the will of the people which is their guaranteed constitutional right.

4. A public servant (prosecuter) decides to trump up some imaginary charges against the church members.

None of the above statements of fact have any correlation to your post.......are you on drugs??........ or just intentionally obtuse??


doc.

What is the Texas law in question?

Chuck58
03-12-2012, 06:49 PM
I think it's ridiculous that in a city that's over 80% Roman Catholic, with barely a .2% queer population, that something like what's happening should even be on the table.

El Paso is also heavily Hispanic and deviants aren't well liked. It's no surprise the proposal was defeated by a wide margin. I can't imagine what that city councilman is thinking, unless he isn't planning on running for the job again.

*edit* Found this on Bloomberg

Mayor John Cook has amassed $250,000 in debt fighting for his job in El Paso (9122MF), the sixth-biggest Texas city, after casting a decisive vote to reject a ban on benefits for same-sex partners of municipal workers. The move sparked demands for his recall.

Cook, 65, faces a special election after he backed repeal of a law passed by voters in November 2010 that limits benefits such as health insurance to city employees, legal spouses and dependent children. Texas doesn’t permit same-sex marriage.

Zathras
03-12-2012, 08:12 PM
What is the Texas law in question?

How about READING THE FUCKING ARTICLE DUMBASS. The answer to your fucking question is in there.

You're really a fucking moron Nova.

TVDOC
03-12-2012, 08:16 PM
What is the Texas law in question?

No specific statute was cited, only alluded to, which is the primary reason for my question. The church members are being "investigated", (read persecuted) for passing around a petition.........

To make this easily understandable for you since you seem to have a learning disability........the best analogy would be for some DA to place a bunch of homosexuals under "investigation" for soliticing signatures on a petition supporting homosexual "marriage"........

Clear now???? See how well the shoe fits on the other foot???

doc

JB
03-12-2012, 08:55 PM
And what.....

How about...He's too invested in his ridiculous original reply to go back on it now. Did he think we wouldn't notice? :biggrin-new:

Novaheart
03-13-2012, 12:26 AM
I think it's ridiculous that in a city that's over 80% Roman Catholic, with barely a .2% queer population, that something like what's happening should even be on the table.

I don't know where you get a figure of .2%, but the percentages don't really matter, unless you also think that the nonmuslim population of Dearborn ought to defer to a Muslim majority. Is that the case? This ought to have nothing to do with religion, it's an equal pay issue.




El Paso is also heavily Hispanic and deviants aren't well liked.

So the legacy of illegal aliens and mass immigration is an attack on Americans and American open mindedness. Yet another reason to oppose the infiltration of this country by unassimilated masses of peasants who answer to papists in Rome and imams in Mecca.

Novaheart
03-13-2012, 12:28 AM
How about READING THE FUCKING ARTICLE DUMBASS. The answer to your fucking question is in there.

You're really a fucking moron Nova.

Really? Am I the one who appears to think that a religion should decide who the government is, and to remove the government if said religion disagrees with secular fairness laws?

Maybe you need to reconsider calling yourself an American. Try on something more appropriate to your belief in religion dominating government.

Novaheart
03-13-2012, 12:34 AM
Charge them with what? It's not criminal to petition the government for something, even if it is something that is unpopular.

That's what I am wondering. I realize that we have the greatest legal minds on the planet right here on this board, but the law referenced apparently exists unless the talking patoot imagines that both a state's attorney and a federal judge are delusional.

I recall being in the Metropolitan Community Church one day when someone tried to place flyers for a gay friendly candidate in the freebie rack. The church manager nearly did a burn out to get over there and prevent this, explaining to the activist that the church could not endorse any candidate on pain of losing its tax exempt status. I didn't think that this also applied to issues, but I would like to know what the basis for the action is- from a source more reliable than our legal wits in the peanut gallery.

Novaheart
03-13-2012, 12:39 AM
And what.......exactly.......does your remark have to do with this issue, which is:



I shouldn't be so tough for a genius such as yourself to figure it out. Florida and Texas were hostile to the Catholic Church, and for good reason. It wouldn't be surprising if Texas had a law, such as the one in Florida, designed to limit the benefit or impact of the Catholic Church so that it never becomes the force in government here as it did under Spanish rule. Not necessarily the same law, but along the same line of intent.

Odysseus
03-13-2012, 12:45 AM
So I guess this prosecutor is unfamiliar with the bill of rights?
Oh, I'm sure that he's familiar with it, the same way that every other would-be tyrant knows what he's going to have to destroy in order to get his way.


So some churches are pissed that they can't undo the will of the people in electing a municipal government that was within its powers and authority to enact domestic partner benefits for workplace fairness.

So a councilman, who is apparently heterosexual, delivered a major bitchslap to some hypocritical POS priest who is doing exactly what Catholics always say that they won't do if elected, ie practicing popery and false allegiance to the US Constitution.

Just summarizing, carry on.
I'm impressed that you can read the article and completely misconstrue its meaning. The will of the people opposed gay benefits, and they passed a referendum to that effect. The bureaucrats decided to override them, and the churches circulated petitions to try to get them to obey the law. You have managed to completely miss that and reverse the article. I don't know how somebody with a greater English comprehension than a parrot in the slow learners' group could do that, but it's impressive.

Apache
03-13-2012, 03:17 AM
Really? Am I the one who appears to think that a religion should decide who the government is, and to remove the government if said religion disagrees with secular fairness laws?

Maybe you need to reconsider calling yourself an American. Try on something more appropriate to your belief in religion dominating government.

queer boi has reading problems.... awww :blue:


glasses may help princess. an understanding of the english language is also needed...

Zathras
03-13-2012, 05:45 AM
Really? Am I the one who appears to think that a religion should decide who the government is, and to remove the government if said religion disagrees with secular fairness laws?

Maybe you need to reconsider calling yourself an American. Try on something more appropriate to your belief in religion dominating government.

No, you're the one that's defending the government overriding the will of the people and intimidating people who want what was voted on by the people to stand. Sounds like you're the one who should reconsider calling yourself American, not I. After all, what you want is akin to what happens in a socialist state such as Cuba or Venezuela, not here in America.

txradioguy
03-13-2012, 05:59 AM
Really? Am I the one who appears to think that a religion should decide who the government is, and to remove the government if said religion disagrees with secular fairness laws?

Maybe you need to reconsider calling yourself an American. Try on something more appropriate to your belief in religion dominating government.

Nova...for safety's sake...I hope the drool from your pavlovian reaponse didn't cause you to slip and fall when you knee jerked and posted the original piece.

Face it...you let the zealotry of your hatred for religion overwhelm any shred of logic when you hit send on the OP.

Otherwise you might have actually read the piece and realized what this idiot in El Paso is doing is wrong on every level.

Instead you were blinded by your politics and bigotry and now it's gotten you into a hole you refuse to quit digging.

Just give it up and move on. You were wrong..and we all see it and you know it.

AmPat
03-13-2012, 10:54 AM
And what.......exactly.......does your remark have to do with this issue, which is:

1. The voters of this community rejected same-sex benefits for city workers

2. A rogue city councilman decided to launch legislation to override the will of the people.

3. Members of some churches circulated petitions supporting the will of the people which is their guaranteed constitutional right.

4. A public servant (prosecuter) decides to trump up some imaginary charges against the church members.

None of the above statements of fact have any correlation to your post.......are you on drugs??........ or just intentionally obtuse??
doc.
Doc,

The problem is you are being unfair. It is inherently unfair to argue with a liberal using facts. Please apologize and try emotion, fallacy, shout downs, and slogans.

TVDOC
03-13-2012, 03:15 PM
Doc,

The problem is you are being unfair. It is inherently unfair to argue with a liberal using facts. Please apologize and try emotion, fallacy, shout downs, and slogans.

I suppose so......however, even with liberals it's rare to see such convoluted thinking,(or lack thereof) it makes my brain bleed.......almost seems to be a person with a mental/emotional issue(s) that needs to spend a LOT of time with a good shrink........

However you are right, as my father taught me: ".....arguing with an idiot only drags you down to their level......sort of like putting lipstick on a pig......it doesn't make the pig look any better, it only pisses them off......."

doc

Apache
03-13-2012, 03:24 PM
......sort of like putting lipstick on a pig......it doesn't make the pig look any better, it only pisses them off......."

doc

oh, so now yer going after rock????http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/tongue/tongue0021.gif


apologize quickly, and maybe he'll just use one swing of the hammer http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/jumping/jumping0006.gif

Chuck58
03-13-2012, 04:03 PM
I don't know where you get a figure of .2%, but the percentages don't really matter, unless you also think that the nonmuslim population of Dearborn ought to defer to a Muslim majority. Is that the case? This ought to have nothing to do with religion, it's an equal pay issue.




So the legacy of illegal aliens and mass immigration is an attack on Americans and American open mindedness. Yet another reason to oppose the infiltration of this country by unassimilated masses of peasants who answer to papists in Rome and imams in Mecca.

Everything you'd ever want to know about El Paso at the link below.


Likely homosexual households (counted as self-reported same-sex unmarried-partner households)

Lesbian couples: 0.2% of all households
Gay men: 0.2% of all households


Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/El-Paso-Texas.html#ixzz1p1bHWMpc