Fair enough. I just did a quick Westlaw search for similar cases and was stymied by an astonishing number of litigants whose name was Sermons.
If churches want to keep their tax exempt status, they shouldn’t interfere in political matters. Too many pulpits double as soapboxes for one political view. If they were telling their congregations to support to oppose some bill or law, then they deserve to have their words come back to bite them
There are an awful lot of very political nonprofits that aren’t churches. I don’t agree with it, but I wouldn’t single out churches as the problem. Frankly, I don’t see a reason for any company to be tax exempt at all, churches, nonprofits or otherwise. Charitable giving by individuals can still be tax-exempt without exempting entire corporations from paying taxes and the obvious favorite-playing that follows.
But chilling speech is much worse than a few tax-exempt organizations getting away with political advocacy. It seems to me that interviewing the churchgoers and/or calling them to the witness stand would serve the same purpose without having to comb through every word spoken from the pulpit.
Since IANAL and I don’t know all the details of the case, what are the PRACTICAL odds that the City will get all it’s asking for?
There are all kinds of lawsuits in which lawyers send out subpoenas left and right, asking for the moon, knowing full well they won’t get it.
Are churches actually likely to be required to hand materials over, or is this just a typical legal tactic that doesn’t mean as much as it appears to at first glance.
I am quite capable of outrage when I believe the govenments is leaning on churches, but I’d like to know if this case actually merits any outrage.
Well, the question is whether the court will narrow or entirely quash the subpoena. All anyone can give you is speculation.
From my seat hundreds of miles away and not being familiar with the Texas bench but being familiar with general civil practice, I’d say some modification of this subpoena to narrow it is 75% likely just on the merits. I think outright quashing of the subpoena is more like a 40% possibility, but with a lot of variability for potential sympathy for the churches that has nothing to do with the law.
Also, if the backlash picks up enough steam, the Mayor might get involved and ask the legal folks to narrow the subpoena. But I don’t know if this has been a big issue in the city or not.
I confess I don’t see a free speech problem here.* Paperwork *seems like a problem - I can imagine a lot of pastors don’t have explicitly written remarks. But it’s a public speech. If the same effect could be reached by simply having someone sit there and take down notes, I don’t see any issue. Legal questions aside, of course.
I can certainly imagine that pastors who skirt the line between activism and endorsement don’t write down their remarks.
Maybe a bit more targeted. From the link in the OP.
Bolding mine.
I have no opinion on the constitutionality of the effort - but aren’t many sermons placed on web sites?
As I understand it the mayor is a lesbian and she was targeting what she called “hate speech” by pastors who oppose homosexuality.
The thing is one can go after just as many liberal churches for promoting political views also. I know my BIL is in an organization that at one time proposed sending “spies” into conservative churches to look for any signs of politics and they had to back off partly due to the threat of their conservative opponents doing the same for liberal churches.
They aren’t “going after” anyone. This lawsuit can have no effect at all on political activity in churches. It’s about an unrelated issue.
I think that’s the issue. Earlier this year, the Equal Rights Ordinance was passed by the City Council. Some people were unhappy with it, and were urging others to contact the mayor and city council members to not let it be put into effect. I remember on Facebook seeing a letter or something that several of the pastors from conservative churches in the city jointly signed saying they were against the ordinance. I looked on Facebook and online and couldn’t find the letter, but I did find this petition against the ordinanceposted on the First Baptist Church Houston website. I remember seeing something similar on the Second Baptist website, but my internet is being slow at the moment and I can’t find it.
The churches and pastors aren’t just saying homosexuality is immoral, which would be within their rights. They were saying specifically that this law is bad, and good Christians should oppose it.
I’m very much not a legal scholar, and I don’t know how the subpoenas figure in, but I thought I’d provide some context as someone who lives in Houston and remembers seeing the kerfuffle from a lot of the local churches.
Even if that IS the issue (which is not at all certain), that’s an issue for the IRS, not for the city of Houston. The mayor of Houston has no say in dtermining whether churches have crossed the line and deserve to have their tax-exempt status lifted.
If Mayor Parker wants to fight churches that she sees as her enemies, let her send whatever she knows about their political activities to the Feds.
If a pastor commands you to sign a petition or go to Hell…
astorian, the Mayor was not likely involved in the decision to issue these subpoenas. That’s not the ordinary operation of things, and she has apparently said she thinks the subpoenas are too broad.
That sounds about right. Here’s an article I just found about the issue. From the article:
Some people on Facebook and other places online make it sound like First Amendment rights are being trampled on, but I think that’s just from people just reading the headlines, or from some people’s desire to feel like martyrs.
I think she is only saying that now after she became surprised at all the backlash it caused.
Why is it that when liberals take over they become the worse tyrants involving civil rights and free speech?
Because you’re a straight white Christian man and conservatives defend your rights while going after other people’s?