Really, Houston?? (Mart: dangerous, vs, murder rate)

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

First, do you know what an injunction is?

If so, how much of that time was there an injunction which prevented HERO from being in affect?

From what I understand H.E.R.O. was in effect from May 2014 until Sept 2015 according to one ABC 13 story.

"But the city did release statistics on the complaints that have come in to the city since HERO went into effect. Before courts shut down HERO enforcement, only 11 complaints came in. Five were based on Racial Discrimination, five on LGBT issues and the last one on gender-related discrimination.

From 5/28/14 to 9/2/15 the City of Houston received 135 complaints from employees complaining about discrimination at the workplace. They are covered by city rules not the HERO ordinance. Proponents of HERO got that list through a TPIA request. While not a perfect comparison - this is how those complaints break down:
56 percent of the discrimination complaints based on Racial discrimination
17 percent based on Gender
13 percent on Familial Status
5 percent on Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity
The rest are based on age, veteran status, national origin and disability.

Due to the court case stopping HERO enforcement, none of these complaints has made it to court".

If this is accurate info then HERO was in effect for well over a year.

Anti-HERO ads center on bathroom use, city complaint data shows other problems | abc13.com

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Lowexpectations

Are you looking at a different doc? The only one I could found was the same 36 page pfd and I just looked through it again and I don't see a section 15-71 a

It was a typo that I immediately corrected. Look above at my post.

[Mr. Krinkle]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

How many times do we need to run through this.....
You could go to Google and pull up hundreds of stories of men sneaking in to women's restrooms to perv out. Men hide in the stalls of women's restrooms, they drill holes in walls, they hide cameras and there was even one man who would climb into the tanks of porta potties in order to view women. Yes, down in the pee and poo.

And you think Prop 1 would increase this action?

Originally Posted by testmo

It is illogical and weird to think hero would increase the chance of men in dresses running into bathroom to hurt people. There is already a law punishing that. So that argument screams lgbt are rapists

It is illogical and weird to think the open carry law would increase the chance of people shooting up a school full of children. There is already a law punishing that. So that argument screams all gun carriers are murders.

See what I did there...HERO will not increase the likelihood of perverts molesting little children.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I believe Pedro's position it I'm not mistaken is that while it is a crime regardless, the vague provision allows for someone to abuse it.

Also to address another poster, it's spurious to argue that just because there hasn't been a lot or any instance of this abuse just yet that it couldn't happen. The point is that the provision sullied an otheewise good bill.

I'm liberal but I'm also a stickler for the facts of any given situation and that while the narrative being painted is of a backwards town denying rights this matter is mostly about a few vague provisions attached to an otherwise good bill pushed by a mayor who has been met with skepticism due to her using it to subpoena church sermons. People are just questioning the practice of 'identity' politics. I highly highly doubt that it has to do with heavy bigotry from a city that elected a gay mayor several times and is decidedly blue.

How do you abuse a situation that is already illegal? Doing it even once is abuse of the law. Pedro is arguing that how a person breaks the law is more important than the crime itself.

Almost every post against the bill in this thread is chock full of not even barely contained bigotry. I don't understand how a self-identified liberal could honestly defend that.

[Lowexpectations]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

It was a typo that I immediately corrected. Look above at my post.

And yet the section you corrected it to doesn't mention bathrooms or restrooms

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

These arguments are no better the 2nd time around, and they were debunked the first time.

Debunked? I must have missed that. lol

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The protections had nothing to do with pedophiles, rapists or general perverts who like assaulting women and kids. Zero. I now think you're intentionally arguing from a disingenuous standpoint.

It's not protecting them, it's allowing them easier access.

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

From what I understand H.E.R.O. was in effect from May 2014 until Sept 2015 according to one ABC 13 story.

"But the city did release statistics on the complaints that have come in to the city since HERO went into effect. Before courts shut down HERO enforcement, only 11 complaints came in. Five were based on Racial Discrimination, five on LGBT issues and the last one on gender-related discrimination.

From 5/28/14 to 9/2/15 the City of Houston received 135 complaints from employees complaining about discrimination at the workplace. They are covered by city rules not the HERO ordinance. Proponents of HERO got that list through a TPIA request. While not a perfect comparison - this is how those complaints break down:
56 percent of the discrimination complaints based on Racial discrimination
17 percent based on Gender
13 percent on Familial Status
5 percent on Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity
The rest are based on age, veteran status, national origin and disability.

Due to the court case stopping HERO enforcement, none of these complaints has made it to court".

If this is accurate info then HERO was in effect for well over a year.

Anti-HERO ads center on bathroom use, city complaint data shows other problems | abc13.com

First, it would be something that would lead to men being more embolden over time. It won't be an immediate action.

Second, there is no way to tell if some perv was emboldened to go into a restroom or not. It's my contention that it would lead to more pervs going into restrooms. It would be one thing if it wasn't already happening, but since there are a ton of cases already, it's very reasonable to assume this would make it worse. Do you disagree? If so, why?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Liberal agenda=treating people with respect and equality. I can see how this might not go over well in some circles.

Exactly!

Like how mayor Parker subpoenaed ministers e-mails and sermons from those who opposed it.
Like how the proponents called the bathroom issue a false issue while in fact they had an opportunity to make sure it didn't cover restrooms and chose not to. So with great respect they lied about it.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Lowexpectations

And yet the section you corrected it to doesn't mention bathrooms or restrooms

A restroom in a business such as a restaurant, clothing store, bar, tire shop, etc is a public accommodation.

Should I quote you the part of HERO that talks about public accommodations (that would include bathrooms)?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Oh I definitely get that irrational fear was a big player, but I have no idea how the bill's rejection actually prevents that fear from being realized. Pedophiles can still go into bathrooms. Molestation is still illegal. It only actively punishes real transgendered people.

The bill would punish non-transgendered people who don't want to have members of the opposite sex in their bathroom.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by NickelsTX

There's a reason progressive candidates and policies have taken numerous hits the past few years and much of it is due to the demonization of straight white people. Don't take craps on one of the nations largest demographics and then complain about losing elections. Your racist and hateful ways disguised as progress aren't wanted here.

And its pretty idiotic too when Houston was the FIRST major city to elect an openly gay mayor.