Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 185
Thanks Tree56Thanks

Thread: Pastor Prevails After State Officials Force Him To Turn Over Sermons

  1. #11
    Anarquistador StanStill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    8,353
    Thanks
    8236

    From
    Home
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    Are you saying Eric holder could not treat constituants fairly, He made very racial comments and even carried a reminder of his commitment to his Racist mindset in his pocket.
    Could you give some examples? I might be saying that, but I don't know what you're referring to.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    28,325
    Thanks
    24341

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I think the real issue here is this, does a business you work for have the right to fire you for what you do when your not on their clock. In some cases employers do have rules how they expect you to act as an employee represenative when you are off work. Some people have been fired for what they said on Facebook that caused concern. In this case the company went thru this part time pastors sermons and determined what he said was against company policy and fired him. The only problem with that is Pastors preach the gospel and its not against the law to do that. Churches are protected groups, non profit organization. The real question is, can an employer fire a part time preacher for what he says from the pulpit? Looks like they can't
    Since the matter was settled out of court for a monetary amount, the case was not adjudicated in a court of law or in EEOC arbitration.

    He was not fired by the state, nor did he get a ruling from EEOC on the states actions in reviewing his sermons so no "moral of the story" can be gleaned.

    In fact, in most states, the state could have fired him with no reason given at all and been totally within their rights.

    Why the state wanted his sermons reviews was not made clear, nor was it given as a reasoning for the settlement.

  3. #13
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    So you agree that a Department of Health employee who says awful things about Christians and/or other races online or in public, or anything else that might look like a government official can't treat all constituents fairly, he should be protected from punishment by the first amendment?

    Yes or no.
    depends on what you mean by awful things. Is it awful to teach that marriage is between one man and one woman? Is it awful to teach that homosexual acts are a sin as it says in the Bible? The church as been teaching this for 1000's of years, so its doesn't mean that they have to change their teachings for the recent social experiments

  4. #14
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    A church's status as a non-profit organization is irrelevant.


    Since the state actually settled, no legal question was determined, or will be, based on this case.
    And you know why they settled don't you. The church and religion are protected. Both by the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment

  5. #15
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Actually, no. The government settled the case, so the court did not determine anything.
    That's because they would have lost. Settlements come when they are advised of laws that would prevent the government from succeeding in their defense. Better they took a loss rather then embarrass themselves any further

  6. #16
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Since the matter was settled out of court for a monetary amount, the case was not adjudicated in a court of law or in EEOC arbitration.

    He was not fired by the state, nor did he get a ruling from EEOC on the states actions in reviewing his sermons so no "moral of the story" can be gleaned.

    In fact, in most states, the state could have fired him with no reason given at all and been totally within their rights.

    Why the state wanted his sermons reviews was not made clear, nor was it given as a reasoning for the settlement.
    If the state would have won, what would keep any employer from going to their employees church and filming a video of what they are listening to in a church and firing them for it? Its an infringement of privacy and religious rights.

  7. #17
    Wrinkly Member Dangermouse's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    19,747
    Thanks
    17298

    From
    Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    And you know why they settled don't you. The church and religion are protected. Both by the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment
    You don't know why they settled. The question was not answered in a decision. Maybe they decided his five minutes of fame was over.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  8. #18
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,245
    Thanks
    21136

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    And you know why they settled don't you.
    Nobody knows why they settled. Generally speaking, however, a settlement is accompanied by a statement signed by the plaintiff that the defendant's choice to settle does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing. That means no court made a ruling, and no administrative agency (here, the EEOC) made any decision. So while there is certainly room to speculate, nothing has been determined and nothing is known for certain except for the facts of the settlement. (Even with a settlement, there is also usually a non-disclosure agreement as to the amount, though that seems not to have been requested here.)

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Both by the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment.
    Um ... the Establishment Clause is in the First Amendment. You apparently have not read even the First Amendment you talk about so much.

  9. #19
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,245
    Thanks
    21136

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    That's because they would have lost.
    There is no way to know that for certain. Any speculation as to what would have happened is just that - speculation. It could also be that the government did not want to waste resources on a battle that would result in losses even if it won - which is why defendants tend to settle anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Settlements come when they are advised of laws that would prevent the government from succeeding in their defense.
    Sometimes. More often, a cost-benefit analysis makes it worth settling to avoid the nuisance. It is not about being right; it is about the money, and even winning costs money.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Better they took a loss rather then embarrass themselves any further.
    This rarely happens, if at all. Nobody, especially a government, thinks like this. You have been watching too many movies.

  10. #20
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,245
    Thanks
    21136

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    If the state would have won, what would keep any employer from going to their employees church and filming a video of what they are listening to in a church and firing them for it?
    An employer can do that now. And they do not even need to record anything - they can just listen. All that can be done on that account is they can be asked to leave the property

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Its an infringement of privacy and religious rights.
    It is not an invasion of privacy if done in a venue open to the public. If filming you through your living room window, sure, but they're unlikely to get any sound that way.

    And there is no "religious right" to have your speeches in public to be free from scrutiny.

    You are making way, way more of this case than you have any cause to.

Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 412
    Last Post: 5th August 2016, 07:02 PM
  2. Replies: 319
    Last Post: 12th April 2015, 06:11 PM
  3. City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 541
    Last Post: 23rd October 2014, 05:26 PM
  4. City of Houston Demands Pastors Turn Over Sermons
    By meridian5455 in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15th October 2014, 01:07 PM
  5. Top two Air Force officials resigning
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 5th June 2008, 07:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed