Really, Houston?? (Mart: schools, office, mayor)

[curbur]

Originally Posted by DSL_PWR

So could someone say you're either racist or you hate Mormons since you didn't vote for either candidate. (just brain storming as that was the basic grouping you used)

It's just hard to fathom how people can be grouped into a black/white, gay/antigay, etc category like you labeled and instead see the gray area that may lie within. People have their own reasons and none of them have to explained.

I am proud that Houston didn't cater to the lib agenda, proves there's still hope.

Voting for a politician based on a characteristic and voting for a law that affects people of a certain characteristic are completely different things. People have their own reasons, but if you're proud, then that means you didn't like any extensions or protections the bill offered. Could you please explain to everyone why you're proud gay people can still get fired for being gay or be removed from an apartment complex for being gay, whereas you cannot be discriminated against on the fact that you might be religious? Like I said, some people begrudgingly voted no on it because they didn't like some implications, yet would extend certain protections the ordinance offered to LGBT individuals. Those people certainly weren't proud. If you're proud that an agenda was trumped, what you're basically saying is you didn't want to extend the same protections that you have today by being in the sexual orientation that is an overwhelming majority towards individuals that are homosexuals, therefore, you don't want homosexuals to have equal protections as you, therefore, if you're proud about the outcome, yes I think you're a bigot.

What is the liberal agenda, or the gay agenda anyways? Let me tell you, the "gay agenda" is "I'm tired of being marginalized and treated as if I'm subhuman and less equal than my heteronormative counterparts". Sounds like a pretty reasonable agenda to me, far more reasonable than "Hey this book that we believe tells us that an entire set of people are wrong, therefore we should interpret that by totally marginalizing and discriminating against them". Or perhaps I'm just late to the ant-christian gay agenda party; if they're sending out pamphlets and meeting schedules already, then I guess I need to update my address with the gay agenda registrar. There is NO calculated agenda; people just want to be treated equally.

[Spartacus713]

XX = Female
XY = Male

Case closed.

[PinkLadyK]

What about XXY?

[curbur]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

XX = Female
XY = Male

Case closed.

Great work Spartacus, if only you could have chimed in with this invaluable contribution sooner, we could have gotten this thread wrapped up a few hours ago. Open and shut case.

[PedroMartinez]

The important thing is that Houston voted down a poorly conceived and flawed ordinance, and I hope it the beginning of a trend of opposition to "feel good" laws.

[DJboutit]

This bill is already a law why do we need a another bill just to reinforce a law this is just dumb. This bill dumb in the first place a mayor that is pushing her own agenda her whole time in office shameful.

[curbur]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The important thing is that Houston voted down a poorly conceived and flawed ordinance, and I hope it the beginning of a trend of opposition to "feel good" laws.

There's certainly nothing wrong with "feel good" laws in general, perhaps certain ones can cross boundary lines for some people as this apparently seemed to do, but in general why would we not pass things that we as humans feel are right? How are basic rights "feel good" laws though? Was the civil rights movement a bunch of "feel good" laws?

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by Glossa

Yes, please do move to Columbia.

More like Mississippi. Conservatives should leave libertarian Texas alone and move to a place that actually embraces their values, such as Mississippi, instead of imposing them on us.

Mississippi will benefit with an improved economy with the skills of the business friendly Texas Republicans along with beneficial population growth and greater representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The important thing is that Houston voted down a poorly conceived and flawed ordinance, and I hope it the beginning of a trend of opposition to "feel good" laws.

What is a "feel good" law?What is the truth behind the "feel good" law that reveals it to be superifical? What are the conditions that would make a law designed to make one "feel good" be bad, or legally suspect? Finally, what are the other laws to which you are referring?

[DSL_PWR]

Originally Posted by curbur

Voting for a politician based on a characteristic and voting for a law that affects people of a certain characteristic are completely different things. People have their own reasons, but if you're proud, then that means you didn't like any extensions or protections the bill offered. Could you please explain to everyone why you're proud gay people can still get fired for being gay or be removed from an apartment complex for being gay, whereas you cannot be discriminated against on the fact that you might be religious? Like I said, some people begrudgingly voted no on it because they didn't like some implications, yet would extend certain protections the ordinance offered to LGBT individuals. Those people certainly weren't proud. If you're proud that an agenda was trumped, what you're basically saying is you didn't want to extend the same protections that you have today by being in the sexual orientation that is an overwhelming majority towards individuals that are homosexuals, therefore, you don't want homosexuals to have equal protections as you, therefore, if you're proud about the outcome, yes I think you're a bigot.

What is the liberal agenda, or the gay agenda anyways? Let me tell you, the "gay agenda" is "I'm tired of being marginalized and treated as if I'm subhuman and less equal than my heteronormative counterparts". Sounds like a pretty reasonable agenda to me, far more reasonable than "Hey this book that we believe tells us that an entire set of people are wrong, therefore we should interpret that by totally marginalizing and discriminating against them". Or perhaps I'm just late to the ant-christian gay agenda party; if they're sending out pamphlets and meeting schedules already, then I guess I need to update my address with the gay agenda registrar. There is NO calculated agenda; people just want to be treated equally.

Didn't need any extensions or protections. The Constitution is enough.