What happened in Houston? Those darned people have spoken.

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
Houston voters have rejected special status for LGBT.

Long established law provides for equal protection under the law for everyone. Many feel the law being proposed was about providing un-equal protection.

What is your sense about this?
 

Rogifan

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2011
20,651
22,313
I guess Tim Cook should stick to his day job and keep Apple out of politics.
 

WarHeadz

macrumors 6502a
Aug 30, 2015
900
5,068
Long Beach, California
I say meh. This will be fixed in all 50 states by a blanket federal law in the upcoming few years. Going city by city trying to do this is ridiculous. And putting civil rights up to a public vote even more so.

Not really surprised, Houston may be a liberal city by Texas standards, but it's still Texas. Sexual orientation and gender identity have been protected categories in my state since the early 90's, the sky hasn't fallen here. All will be good.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
I live in Houston and the commercials the opponents were airing were aimed at people who were completely uninformed. I spoke with many people at work (who love to grill me about this stuff as the only "democrat") and they had no idea what HERO was actually about. ALL they kept talking about was keeping men out of women's bathrooms...

It's so frustrating.

 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
See post #62 of this thread for an example of the vote no flyers that were mailed out. Equal rights, anti-discrimination laws can cover transgender individuals with exceptions as needed.
Ah yes, common sense Conservatives. When you see that, you can bet someone's rights are being ****ed with.

I live in Houston and the commercials the opponents were airing were aimed at people who were completely uninformed. I spoke with many people at work (who love to grill me about this stuff as the only "democrat") and they had no idea what HERO was actually about. ALL they kept talking about was keeping men out of women's bathrooms...

It's so frustrating.
What a disgusting ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,829
I live in Houston and the commercials the opponents were airing were aimed at people who were completely uninformed. I spoke with many people at work (who love to grill me about this stuff as the only "democrat") and they had no idea what HERO was actually about. ALL they kept talking about was keeping men out of women's bathrooms...

It's so frustrating.

I had to watch that twice as I thought it was satire the first time round.
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
709
FL
Ignorant and scared voters. Not a pretty combination. See present day America.
Yeah all those ignorant and scared voters who elected an openly gay mayor then reelected her for a second term and then their ignorance really shined through reelecting her for a third term. I think the term you wanted to use was *concerned* voters.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Yeah all those ignorant and scared voters who elected an openly gay mayor then reelected her for a second term and then their ignorance really shined through reelecting her for a third term. I think the term you wanted to use was *concerned* voters.
misinformed pollers. just ask a person in Texas what a transgender person is and you will see the problem. hey ask Michelle dugger she did a robocall shopping how wise she is about that. Remember there are female transgender people too but we all seem to miss that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
Yeah all those ignorant and scared voters who elected an openly gay mayor then reelected her for a second term and then their ignorance really shined through reelecting her for a third term. I think the term you wanted to use was *concerned* voters.
Ignorant in the sense that they were uninformed about what was in the actual ordinance. The opponents were banking on people buying into the scare tactics without any further education into what they were actually voting against, and they were right.

How can you not watch or listen to the ads they were running and think that they weren't banking on people's fears? They absolutely were, and it worked. Obviously. Because, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

And I can tell you from experience that people still have no clue about what they actually voted down.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,036
16,503
The Misty Mountains
Yeah all those ignorant and scared voters who elected an openly gay mayor then reelected her for a second term and then their ignorance really shined through reelecting her for a third term. I think the term you wanted to use was *concerned* voters.
Much of the concern was based on the "no" ads that circulated, misrepresentations of the issue. Could it be a can of worms yes, but exceptions in laws are very common.

Ignorant in the sense that they were uninformed about what was in the actual ordinance. The opponents were banking on people buying into the scare tactics without any further education into what they were actually voting against, and they were right.

How can you not watch or listen to the ads they were running and think that they weren't banking on people's fears? They absolutely were, and it worked. Obviously. Because, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

And I can tell you from experience that people still have no clue about what they actually voted down.
It took both me and the wife a while to find The Men In Women's Bathroom Proposition. It was the first one listed that said nothing about bathrooms. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
Houston voters have rejected special status for LGBT.

Long established law provides for equal protection under the law for everyone. Many feel the law being proposed was about providing un-equal protection.

What is your sense about this?
Which law currently protects Houston residents from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and housing?
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Original poster
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
Special protected classes are an offshoot of leftist division politics and it’s completely unnecessary, unless one wishes to control the population, one special interest group at a time.

What it fails to take into account that nobody, regardless the special interest group or balance of the population, is free of mental illness, corruption, the 7 deadly sins, and just being an all-around A hole. Protected groups are rife for abuse of the general population.

Anecdotes abound. One of the first I recall was sexual harassment laws in the workplace, from which arose unsubstantiated attacks on business from the fired or the demoted, attacks on business when an anticipated raise didn’t occur, or general attacks on business via shakedown.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
What is your sense about this?
Lawsuits will ultimately determine the issue.

Good luck in court.


I live in Houston and the commercials the opponents were airing were aimed at people who were completely uninformed. I spoke with many people at work (who love to grill me about this stuff as the only "democrat") and they had no idea what HERO was actually about. ALL they kept talking about was keeping men out of women's bathrooms...
As I pointed out in the transgender teen thread, this particular fear has been used as a political tool since at least the '70's.

Apparently it still sells well today.
 

mgguy

macrumors 6502
Dec 26, 2006
478
1,019
So the ordinance, if passed, would not have enabled a pre-op trans-girl, for example, from using a women's restroom or public shower facility? Is there any truth to this claim made by the opponents of the ordinance?
 
Last edited:

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
So the ordinance, if passed, would not have enabled a pre-op trans-girl, for example, from using a women's restroom or public shower facility? Is there any truth to the claim made by the opponents of the ordinance?
This is what was listed on the ballot:

"Are you in favor of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, Ord. No. 2014-530, which prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual's sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy?"

Source

The full Ordinance can be found here.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Special protected classes are an offshoot of leftist division politics and it’s completely unnecessary, unless one wishes to control the population, one special interest group at a time.

What it fails to take into account that nobody, regardless the special interest group or balance of the population, is free of mental illness, corruption, the 7 deadly sins, and just being an all-around A hole. Protected groups are rife for abuse of the general population.

Anecdotes abound. One of the first I recall was sexual harassment laws in the workplace, from which arose unsubstantiated attacks on business from the fired or the demoted, attacks on business when an anticipated raise didn’t occur, or general attacks on business via shakedown.
I'm confused Mr. Mellish. You and your ilk have told us that Republicans passed Civil Rights legislation. So how is it that protected classes are an "offshoot of leftist division politics"?
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
This is what was listed on the ballot:

"Are you in favor of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, Ord. No. 2014-530, which prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual's sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy?"

Source

The full Ordinance can be found here.
I would point out that the Ordinance you linked to is the same Ordinance that the Texas Supreme court ordered the City of Houston to either repeal or place on the ballot as a ballot measure. Basically, after the ordinance was passed 11-6 by the City Council, the people organized a successful repeal campaign. The City Council ignored this, which lead to the lawsuit forcing the council (in a 12-5 vote) to place it on the ballot. And now we find the people, by popular vote, don't want this ordinance at all.

The root cause of all this strife is the arrogant (lesbian) mayor of Houston and the city council. She and the city council members forced the issue and demonstrated that they will ignore the will of the people for their own SJW purposes. Those people need to be replaced in the next election.
 

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
I would point out that the Ordinance you linked to is the same Ordinance that the Texas Supreme court ordered the City of Houston to either repeal or place on the ballot as a ballot measure. Basically, after the ordinance was passed 11-6 by the City Council, the people organized a successful repeal campaign. The City Council ignored this, which lead to the lawsuit forcing the council (in a 12-5 vote) to place it on the ballot. And now we find the people, by popular vote, don't want this ordinance at all.

The root cause of all this strife is the arrogant (lesbian) mayor of Houston and the city council. She and the city council members forced the issue and demonstrated that they will ignore the will of the people for their own SJW purposes. Those people need to be replaced in the next election.
Oh, I'm well aware of the circumstances surrounding the ballot measure. I live in Houston. It was a clusterfu**.

I would submit that one of the reasons the Mayor (aren't all politicians arrogant?? I'm sure it's not a lesbian thing) wanted to push this through was because of her fear of this exact thing happening. The amount of misinformation relating to this ordinance, and the ignorance of those voting against it would be laughable if I was watching this from a distance. Unfortunately, I was watching it close up. And I saw the people "No men in women's bathrooms" shirts when I voted.

In the short amount of time it was in place, most of the complaints were based on racial discrimination, including a case where black people were asked to pay a cover charge at a local bar, and white people weren't.

To wrap the whole ordinance up in the shroud of the "gay agenda" is ridiculous and absolutely untrue. And the fact that they had to resort to the campaign that they did is even more astounding. If this campaign was based on the actual ordinance and not fear mongering lies, I would believe that people "didn't want this ordinance at all". But, that isn't what happened. They banked on uninformed voters, and they got them.
 
Last edited:

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
To wrap the whole ordinance up in the shroud of the "gay agenda" is ridiculous and absolutely untrue. And the fact that they had to resort to the campaign that they did is even more astounding. If this campaign was based on the actual ordinance and not fear mongering lies, I would believe that people "didn't want this ordinance at all". But, that isn't what happened. They banked on uniformed voters, and they got them.
I think the problem is that laws that were put in place during the Civil Rights movement are now being expanded far beyond the protections they were originally intended to provide. If it was more specific in what rights it was trying to protect then likely it would have passed.

I looked through the actual text of the ordinance that you posted a few posts back and while it doesn't specifically mention allowing men who say they are women into women's bathrooms or women who say they are men into men's bathrooms it would appear that Sec. 17-51. (a) would allow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdqgp and tgara

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,972
Criminal Mexi Midget
I think the problem is that laws that were put in place during the Civil Rights movement are now being expanded far beyond the protections they were originally intended to provide. If it was more specific in what rights it was trying to protect then likely it would have passed.

I looked through the actual text of the ordinance that you posted a few posts back and while it doesn't specifically mention allowing men who say they are women into women's bathrooms or women who say they are men into men's bathrooms it would appear that Sec. 17-51. (a) would allow it.
Should be covered under gender identity .
Don't see much of s problem for restrooms, showers would be a different story
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

Moyank24

macrumors 601
Aug 31, 2009
4,334
2,421
in a New York State of mind
I think the problem is that laws that were put in place during the Civil Rights movement are now being expanded far beyond the protections they were originally intended to provide. If it was more specific in what rights it was trying to protect then likely it would have passed.

I looked through the actual text of the ordinance that you posted a few posts back and while it doesn't specifically mention allowing men who say they are women into women's bathrooms or women who say they are men into men's bathrooms it would appear that Sec. 17-51. (a) would allow it.
I mean, really, how much more specific can it get? And would it have mattered? It's obvious that people who voted against this didn't actually take the time to actually find out what the ordinance was actually protecting. The ad that I linked and ones like it have been inundating us for months. People TRULY had no idea that there were other protections involved here. That's what been so frustrating to me.

What those ads are addressing is already illegal in Houston (to enter a bathroom for the purposes of harassment, or anything more serious), and this law wouldn't have changed that. 17-51 (a) would protect a transgender against discrimination if they wanted to use a bathroom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn