Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 185
Thanks Tree56Thanks

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

  1. #21
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,162
    Thanks
    4426

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    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


    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.
    Aboutenough doesn't understand how to do research. He is supposed to start with nothing, gather information and see what conclusions can be drawn. Instead, he makes the same Texas Sharpshooter fallacy where he conducts research around his perfidious, asinine conclusions. He will also just read information and shoehorn his own dogma and ideologies into them.
    Last edited by Michael J; 16th May 2017 at 05:04 PM.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  2. #22
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,162
    Thanks
    4426

    From
    Washington
    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? Its an infringement of privacy and religious rights.
    You have no expectation of privacy if you're out in public or speaking at an event that is open to the public. I could listen to one of your perfidious, supercilious sermons while you're doing them out in public, video record you and put you on YouTube.

    The teacher made that all very clear in the Mass Media Law class that I took as a Journalism major. Read the precedents that the courts have set.
    Last edited by Michael J; 16th May 2017 at 05:02 PM.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  3. #23
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,162
    Thanks
    4426

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    That's because they would have lost.
    How do you know? The case wasn't brought to court.
    Last edited by Michael J; 16th May 2017 at 05:00 PM.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #24
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    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.)


    Um ... the Establishment Clause is in the First Amendment. You apparently have not read even the First Amendment you talk about so much.
    1st amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment

    This why I posted it all because you like to leave out the parts that you disagree with like the prohibiting free exercise part
    Last edited by aboutenough; 16th May 2017 at 05:05 PM.

  5. #25
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    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.


    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.


    This rarely happens, if at all. Nobody, especially a government, thinks like this. You have been watching too many movies.
    this is why they settle. Get sued by the defendent for firing him for his beliefs.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    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


    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.
    Obviously spying on your employee's doesn't work or the government would have not paid out a settlement.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    You have no expectation of privacy if you're out in public or speaking at an event that is open to the public. I could listen to one of your perfidious, supercilious sermons while you're doing them out in public, video record you and put you on YouTube.

    The teacher made that all very clear in the Mass Media Law class that I took as a Journalism major. Read the precedents that the courts have set.
    go ahead and try it. I could sue you for posting a video of me without my permission. I would like to make enough money to buy a new house

  8. #28
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    48,426
    Thanks
    2672

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    How do you know? The case wasn't brought to court.
    The employer settled. That means they have no defense, so they paid a sum they both agreed on for damages. You think the employer would give money away just because they wanted to?

  9. #29
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,245
    Thanks
    21136

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    This why I posted [] all [of the 1st Amendment] because you like to leave out the parts that you disagree with like the prohibiting free exercise part.
    I neither disagree with the Free Exercise clause, nor do I "leave it out." It is not relevant. As the Supreme Court has ruled, the Free Exercise clause does not permit you to do anything you want as long as you can cloak it in religious belief. Behavior can be regulated, and so long as the regulation is generally applicable and does not target religious practice or otherwise violate the Lemon test, it does not violate the Free Exercise clause. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (Scalia, J., writing for the Court). You have been referred to that case many times before, but apparently have not read it.
    Thanks from Claudius the God

  10. #30
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,245
    Thanks
    21136

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    This is why they settle. Get sued by the defendent for firing him for his beliefs.
    Um, no. Settlements do not work like that.

    Besides, the plaintiff is the one who files the suit, not the defendant - who "defends" (hence the name) against the suit.

    Daniel-san, you too much TV.
    Thanks from StanStill and jacobfitcher

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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