ERayR Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 If it is true that petitions were signed at the churches and promoted from the pulpit ,then that seems like blurring the line between church and state. However, what that has to do with whether or not correct info was relayed to people pertaining to the accuracy of the petition ,I have no idea. Does the city really want 50,000 legitimate signatures delivered to force a plebiscite? If incorrect info was given the city should be thrilled.I would hope that the pastors involved send a sharp stick to the city with instructions on its use. Huckabee has suggested that every Pastor in America send Ms. Mayor their sermons and he gave the address to send them to. I would be interested in seeing how many she gets. 1
ERayR Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Do you have a link? I can't find a link right now. Huckabee had one of the Pastors and the lead attorney representing them on his show last night. The attorney said the subpoena's were asking for copies of (I believe) 17 forms of communication including communication with parishioners. It seems the mayor has blinked. The third line in this article sheds some light on this. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/10/15/BREAKING-Houston-Mayor-Backs-Off-From-Subpoenas-to-Pastors Edited October 20, 2014 by ERayR
Calm Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 The Mayor's tweet specifies instructions for filing....it does not appear to be as a broad request.
ERayR Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 The Mayor's tweet specifies instructions for filing....it does not appear to be as a broad request. "...asking the pastors for the content of their sermons, speeches and communications with church members." Communications with church members is protected communications between Pastor and parishioners.
Calm Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 "...asking the pastors for the content of their sermons, speeches and communications with church members." Communications with church members is protected communications between Pastor and parishioners.Why would it be protected if it was discussions about how to file signatures?
ERayR Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Why would it be protected if it was discussions about how to file signatures? It was a subpoena not limited to the discussion of filing signatures but was all inclusive. However, I think that any conversation btween a Pastor and a parishioner falls into privileged communication, no matter how innocuous.
Recommended Posts