UK2K
11-06-2015, 10:02 AM
What's your take on this law? Having lived in Houston only two years ago, I know the mayor of Houston is a big supporter of LGBT rights (being a lesbian herself).
I actually don't have a problem with any part of the law, and think it would have passed, had the mayor not tried to sneak in the part about 'bathroom discrimination'.
The rundown on the proposition is below, I highlighted the important parts.
The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance — Proposition 1 on the local ballot —would have extended bans on employment and housing discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national original and other classifications to gay people, bisexual people and transgender people.
Foes of the law focused like a laser beam on the transgender aspect of the law. They characterized it as the “bathroom ordinance,” saying it would allow men who wear women’s clothes — and sexual predators — to use public women’s bathrooms. They also said the ordinance would conflict with religious liberty and generate a raft of litigation against Houston’s small businesses.
Proposition 1 found its way onto the ballot in America’s fourth-largest city this summer when the Supreme Court ruled that the expansive law — which had been briefly in effect — required the say-so of the actual citizens it would affect.
The Texas Supreme Court reached its decision because five pastors had brought a lawsuit after Houston’s taxpayer-funded city attorneys, led by Houston Mayor Annise Parker, attempted to subpoena their sermons.
Parker later withdrew her subpoenas but the outcry over religious liberty was not quelled.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled in July that the city had to repeal the ordinance or let voters decide.
Supporters of Proposition 1 argued that the ordinance would consolidate and expand rights against discrimination.
They released a doleful statement Tuesday night.
“We are disappointed with today’s outcome, but our work to secure nondiscrimination protections for all hard-working Houstonians will continue,” the statement, obtained by the Houston Chronicle, said. “No one should have to live with the specter of discrimination hanging over them. Everyone should have the freedom to work hard, earn a decent living and provide for themselves and their families.”
Like I said, the law isn't a bad one, and it may have passed, but the mayor attempted to subpoena the sermons of pastors across the city in order to force them to stop preaching against gay marriage a few months ago. Very nazi-like of the mayor, and a big no-no, IMO.
Because of that, a lot of attention was turned to Proposition 1.
The only problem with the law is allowing someone, who identifies as a woman but is not in any way, shape, or form, a woman, to use women's facilities. That includes small businesses. Planet Fitness comes to mind. If I followed a woman into the women's showers, and stood next to her, legally, they could not tell me to leave. Per the law.
The proposition was voted down by 61% of the city (shocking considering how left leaning the city actually is), but I think it brings up more debate about when you can identify, and be treated as, a female (or male).
Do you have to have the parts? Do you have to undergo hormone treatment? How can a business prove someone is or isn't? It's a slippery slope.
I actually don't have a problem with any part of the law, and think it would have passed, had the mayor not tried to sneak in the part about 'bathroom discrimination'.
The rundown on the proposition is below, I highlighted the important parts.
The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance — Proposition 1 on the local ballot —would have extended bans on employment and housing discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national original and other classifications to gay people, bisexual people and transgender people.
Foes of the law focused like a laser beam on the transgender aspect of the law. They characterized it as the “bathroom ordinance,” saying it would allow men who wear women’s clothes — and sexual predators — to use public women’s bathrooms. They also said the ordinance would conflict with religious liberty and generate a raft of litigation against Houston’s small businesses.
Proposition 1 found its way onto the ballot in America’s fourth-largest city this summer when the Supreme Court ruled that the expansive law — which had been briefly in effect — required the say-so of the actual citizens it would affect.
The Texas Supreme Court reached its decision because five pastors had brought a lawsuit after Houston’s taxpayer-funded city attorneys, led by Houston Mayor Annise Parker, attempted to subpoena their sermons.
Parker later withdrew her subpoenas but the outcry over religious liberty was not quelled.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled in July that the city had to repeal the ordinance or let voters decide.
Supporters of Proposition 1 argued that the ordinance would consolidate and expand rights against discrimination.
They released a doleful statement Tuesday night.
“We are disappointed with today’s outcome, but our work to secure nondiscrimination protections for all hard-working Houstonians will continue,” the statement, obtained by the Houston Chronicle, said. “No one should have to live with the specter of discrimination hanging over them. Everyone should have the freedom to work hard, earn a decent living and provide for themselves and their families.”
Like I said, the law isn't a bad one, and it may have passed, but the mayor attempted to subpoena the sermons of pastors across the city in order to force them to stop preaching against gay marriage a few months ago. Very nazi-like of the mayor, and a big no-no, IMO.
Because of that, a lot of attention was turned to Proposition 1.
The only problem with the law is allowing someone, who identifies as a woman but is not in any way, shape, or form, a woman, to use women's facilities. That includes small businesses. Planet Fitness comes to mind. If I followed a woman into the women's showers, and stood next to her, legally, they could not tell me to leave. Per the law.
The proposition was voted down by 61% of the city (shocking considering how left leaning the city actually is), but I think it brings up more debate about when you can identify, and be treated as, a female (or male).
Do you have to have the parts? Do you have to undergo hormone treatment? How can a business prove someone is or isn't? It's a slippery slope.