The openly lesbian mayor of Houston who created a national furor
by allowing subpoenas to be issued by the city for the sermons of several area
Christian pastors has been named defendant in a lawsuit by some of those same
pastors who are alleging civil-rights violations.
“Each plaintiff brings this civil rights lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. [Paragraph] 1983 for defendant [Mayor Annise] Parker’s wrongful
actions under color of state law depriving each of them of procedural and
substantive due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as well as to vindicate their liberty interests under the Bill of
Rights and Amendments to the United States Constitution,” the complaint, filed
Monday in Harris County District Court, says.
The fight is over a
transgender ordinance Parker pushed through the city council more than a year
ago. Some members of the Houston
Area Pastor Council and other pastors
formed an alliance to collect signatures to force the city either to overturn
the ordinance or allow voters to have their say.
Although the city secretary certified enough
signatures had been turned in, the mayor and city attorney manipulated the
results to avoid allowing a popular vote.
Eventually
the state Supreme Court
stepped into the fight, during which time the city had subpoenaed the pastors’
sermons, and called a halt. The justices ordered the council to either repeal or put to a
popular vote the ordinance, which had drawn strong opposition for opening
ladies’ public restrooms and locker rooms to men who claimed they were women.
“If the city council does not repeal the
ordinance by August 24, 2015, then by that date the city council must order
that the ordinance be put to popular vote during the November 2015 election,”
the ruling said. The court also suspended any enforcement of the ordinance.
The lawsuit seeks damages as allowed under
federal law, attorneys’ fees, the costs of the suit and other relief. A major
and unprecedented focal point of the conflict has been the city’s demands for
the Christian ministers’ sermons.
“Now known as the ‘Houston 5,’ several of whom
are plaintiffs herein, these Houston pastors valiantly fought the subpoenas by
filing motions and briefing in the court from which the subpoenas had been
issued,” it explains. “Surprisingly, defendant Parker did not back down or
apologize. Instead, she and her then-City Attorney, David Feldman, embraced
what had transpired and strongly defended their unconstitutional subpoenas and
illegal actions.
“For example, David Feldman said: ‘Some [petition]
signatures were acquired at churches which make the sermons fair game.’ Feldman
also said, ‘If they choose to do this inside the church, choose to do this from
the pulpit, then they open the door to the questions being asked.’ The major
did the same thing. On Twitter, defendant Parker echoed her city attorney’s
defense of the subpoenas: ‘If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their
sermons are fair game.’
“Thus, by improperly issuing unconstitutional
subpoenas, and by refusing to withdraw such subpoenas when given the
opportunity and ratifying those wrongful actions instead, Defendant Parker
violated the constitutional rights of the Houston 5, emanating from the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the complaint says.
The case drew national
attention when WND
broke the story that Parker had issued
subpoenas to the five pastors for copies of their sermons and other
communications. After the story was turbocharged by posting on the Drudge Report,
the pastors called for an investigation of city hall’s actions.
A subsequent nationwide outpouring of criticism
prompted officials to drop the subpoenas.
Rush
Limbaugh at the time called the
subpoenas “one of the most vile, filthy, blatant violations of the Constitution
that I have seen.”
Andy Taylor, an attorney who has worked with the
pastors throughout, said, “The purpose of this lawsuit is not to retaliate for
her wrongful behavior, but instead to create deterrence to all future Mayor
Parkers to let them know once and for all that if you are going to violate the
voting rights of over a million people there will be a day of reckoning.”
Americans had protested the subpoenas by sending
Parker thousands of Bibles and asking her to read them.
The transgender ordinance now is being scheduled
to be on the ballot in November. The mayor issued a statement on the new
development. “This new lawsuit is not about civil rights or religious freedom.
It’s about politics. It is being waged by a small group that wants to take
Houston backward instead of moving it forward,” she said.
She explained Houston now is “a diverse mixture
of residents who get along and are accepting of each other’s differences. It is
this open and inclusive atmosphere that helps make Houston attractive to new
residents, new business, major sporting events like the Super Bowl and more.” She
said the image would be “hurt” by the pastors’ action.
The plaintiffs include
Pastors F.N. Williams Sr., Hernan Castano, Magda Hermida and Khanh Huynh, as
well as the Houston Area Pastor Council.
Parker’s plan would have allowed biological
males in women’s restrooms. It also would have criminalized Christian service
businesses who might decline to serve a same-sex ceremony.
“I was part of the Civil Rights movement and
marched with Dr. King and Dr. Abernathy for our voting rights. This is America
and about all Americans’ rights, not just minorities,” Williams said.
Opponents
of the transgender ordinance had collected some 55,000 signatures for repeal. The city
secretary stopped counting after she reached the required number for a recall
of 17,269, plus a margin of error.
The city, however, claimed that only a few
thousand were valid, based on rules they said needed to be applied even though
they were not in the city charter, such as legibility issues.
The state Supreme Court said, “We agree with the
relators that the city secretary certified their petition and thereby invoked
the city council’s ministerial duty to reconsider and repeal the ordinance or
submit it to popular vote. The city secretary unequivocally stated that ‘I am
able to certify that … the number of signatures verified on the petition
submitted on July 3, 201, is 17,846′ and that only 17,269 were required.
“Once the city council received the city
secretary’s certification, it had a ministerial duty to act,” the court said.
“According to the charter, following the city secretary’s certification, ‘the
council shall immediately reconsider such ordinance or resolution and, if it
does not entirely repeal the same, shall submit it to popular vote at the next
city general election.’”
The opinion said: “Faced with the city
secretary’s certification, the city council had no discretion but to repeal the
ordinance or proceed with the election process. If the city council believed
the city secretary abused her discretion in certifying the petition or
otherwise erred in her duties, it was nevertheless obligated to fulfill its
duties under the charter and thereafter seek any affirmative relief to which it
might be entitled.
“But the city council did not do so. Instead, it
refused to fulfill its ministerial duty, forcing the petition organizers to
file suit.”
The case also cites the city’s attempt to
deprive voters of their right to vote on the issue.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/lesbian-mayor-who-demanded-sermons-now-being-sued/
No comments:
Post a Comment