I don't see anything wrong with the subpoenas. They gave these sermons in public already, so what does it matter if they give a copy to the courts? Besides that, the courts are not going to care what the sermon was about -- they'll be interested to hear if the church violated their tax-exempt status by becomnig overtly political and telling congregants to sign a petition. Since the whole question is about whether the signatures are legitimate, it seems like an appropriate bit of discovery. Maybe they need to revise the subpoenas to be more specific or something, but you can't just be hands-off because it's a church.
The entire post was sarcastic Eddie, nothing to do with his "stands" on Human Rights. "Thanks Obama" (I thought anyway) is an obvious sarcastic comment that has for awhile now been tossed out in response to things that he obviously had nothing to do with. So, apparently you didn't get the sarcasm part. Or maybe my assumption with "Thanks Obama" is flawed. Either way, let's just drop it.
They say they are not to contest their Exempt Status but if they happen to find something that allows it . . .they would not not use it. Not unlike Search warrents. . .they not there to look for drugs . . .but they not going to ignore it if they see them Rocket River
So, they're upset that they filed a lawsuit and are now subject to the discovery process? Can't have it both ways, guys. For as much as the religious right wants to influence public life, they sure do get thrown into a tizzy when the public tries to influence them.
