It appears the LGBT crowd has taken another hit with their concept, on what they consider to be discrimination. Although, the article states Conservatives are largely against the Law. Which is a false nomer. As many Independents didn't think it was okay for men dressed as women to use womens bathrooms in public. What say ye? Houston Equal Rights Ordinance fails by wide margin..... Houston's controversial equal rights ordinance failed by a wide margin Tuesday, with voters opting to repeal the law that offered broad non-discrimination protections, according to incomplete and unofficial returns. The hotly contested election has spurred national attention, drawing comment from the White House and the state's top officials. Largely conservative opponents of the law allege that it would allow men dressed as women, including sexual predators, to enter women's restrooms. Supporters of the law, including Mayor Annise Parker, argue that it extends an important local recourse for a range of protected classes to respond to discrimination. The ordinance bans discrimination based not just on gender identity and sexual orientation, but also 13 classes already protected under federal law: sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, disability, pregnancy and genetic information, as well as family, marital or military status.....snip~ http://www.chron.com/politics/election/local/article/HERO-results-6608562.php
Houston is very Democratic and the mayor is a lesbian Democrat. The extreme push for special privileges to transgenders is not supported by most people.
Heya Jake. Yeah it does cross all lines.....Still they tried to put it all on the Conservatives as the mass opposition. Did Hillary the Incompetent sound off on this?
It's just like the case in the Illinois school district where the social engineers are trying to make boys who think they're girls undress in female locker rooms out in the open (i.e. without privacy curtains or the like). The liberal crazies think that being a tranny gives a person some special right to whip out his junk in front of ACTUAL young girls. They want to be immune from indecent exposure laws. In that case, and this one, the solution is clear. Since the social engineers have insisted that gender is now determined by a personal decision, that term has become so subjective as to be meaningless as far as public policy is concerned. So the answer is to say that we are not separating people (in bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) by "gender", but by "sex". Problem solved. Everyone with a penis to the left, everyone with a vagina to the right. Non-discriminatory. Because you're not unpacking the contents of your mind in the bathroom or locker room, you're unpacking the contents of your pants.
All that needs to be done is take down the "Men" and "Women" signs on bathrooms and replace them with "XX" and "XY". Problem solved.
It wasn't about men dressed as women using the ladies room. It was about men dressed as men using the ladies room.
You would have to inspect crotches in order to enforce such laws. - - - Updated - - - There isn't a problem. It is completely manufactured. things just need to be left alone and nothing will happen.
opponents of the law allege that it would allow men dressed as women, including sexual predators, to enter women's restrooms. Supporters of the law, including Mayor Annise Parker, argue that it extends an important local recourse for a range of protected classes to respond to discrimination.....snip~ Do you think they(The Very Special People) can explain out how it EXTENDS an IMPORTANT LOCAL RECOURSE for a range of protected classes to respond to discrimination. As that BS is what I want to hear just so it can be taken apart properly. Truly I like when the Left likes to play with terminology and put things up into the mix. Feigning like they were using those alleged smart powers.
Well then.....lets put those social engineers on Display before the Country. Keep them there in the light. Where they can't hide. Lets get their names out there for others to see and remember.
They could do that anyway. the law would allow men dressed as men entry into the women's bathroom. No but I was never a supporter of the law. This isn't about left wing agenda crap. Annise porker is on her way out of office and she wants a legacy. This bathroom ordinance crap has got her into hit water, she committed fraud and attempted to violate the first amendment in order to silence the detractors. On Tuesday night she was throwing a fit when the ordinance was voted 62% against.
Well once the WH jumped in.....I know how BO likes to play with the political. Hence my calling out the left. Thanks for explaining that out.
Really? I would be surprised if this passed by popular vote. Men changing in women's locker rooms isn't popular.
Seems like a kinda silly objection... it kinda reminds me of the anti-gun-control argument that goes something like "gun control laws only prevent good people from getting guns, because the bad people will just ignore the law". Along that same note, if a sexual predictor is wanting to assault a woman in a restroom, I doubt they're thinking to themselves "if only I could dress up like a woman and enter this restroom legally". Such a person is planning on breaking the law in the first place if it's sexual assault they're planning, doesn't really matter if the law says they shouldn't be in there. Whether or not the law says they're "allowed" to, they can sneak in regardless. I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or the other, but it seems like a silly and overblown focus on one, arguably minor part of the law. And on that same note, I'm curious what kind of discrimination the law was trying to remedy, more broadly speaking. Not saying that there was not an issue that needs to be addressed, but all the news and discussion seems to be focused on the bathroom issue, and not on any particular issues the law aimed to address. It would be just as bad of the proponents of the law were pushing for it to be passed just to get kudos for non-existent issues from their side, just as the opponents are seemingly trying to get kudos from their own side based on their own non-existent issues.
` Rather than attempting to define bathroom usage by gender, they should be marked anatomically; Penis and Vagina. Problem solved.
There really isn't an issue. I honestly think this was manufactured. It's really about a mayor wanting a legacy. She had been insistent on this. She tried to cram it down our throats and the city fought it legally, she tried to ignore it and the city screamed do loudly she couldn't. She tried to violate first amendment rights and the courts denied her. She fought some rather draconian laws that targeted homosexuals for prosecution in Texas. She fought to remove laws against "homosexual conduct" which was a misdemeanor in Texas until recently, she was part of some other cases. She did some good. But the battle is coming to a close and she wants more notoriety. I followed this one closely, I read up on Annise Parker. I even voted on it. - - - Updated - - - I personally think the property owner should call the shots.
I don't think they ever explained out, what or how It extends a local recourse for a range of protected classes to respond to discrimination. It even sounds like it has word play to it.....just to make it seem like something Right was being done.
