I've never been so proud of this city

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

You expect them to pass or amend ordinances that you have railed against in this forum, so its ok with you if Houston is the only city in America where its safe for a woman to use a public bathroom?

Woulda coulda shoulda. What Mayor Parker did or didn't do right is not the most pressing problem. If we are going to Monday morning QB why didn't the conservatives use HERO to elect a conservative mayor who could have then moved to "amend" HERO instead of having the PR nightmare of "repealing" a civil rights ordinance ? Or why didn't conservatives just push for a amendment of the bathroom clause instead of the all or nothing route they took?

A lot of those cities on that list are going to make amendments like Dallas did so when Houston does finally get around to passing some kind of ERO it will be seen as lacking in some way.

ONCE AGAIN, my, and most people's, opposition to HERO was the bathroom part, and it they get rid of that, HERO will pass.

Other cities are other cities, and it's up to their citizens to decide what they want. Houstonians didn't want men to have access to women's restrooms and voted that way.

I just don't understand why you want to get rid of all of HERO in order to allow men into the women's restroom. Why is that?

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

ONCE AGAIN, my, and most people's, opposition to HERO was the bathroom part, and it they get rid of that, HERO will pass.

Other cities are other cities, and it's up to their citizens to decide what they want. Houstonians didn't want men to have access to women's restrooms and voted that way.

I just don't understand why you want to get rid of all of HERO in order to allow men into the women's restroom. Why is that?

Oh boy, this is going in circles. One last time, I don't think the infinitesimally small possibility of some rapist using HERO as a cover to commit a sexual assault was worth the PR hit that Houston has taken. No law is ever perfectly crafted in its original form and any law that is shown to have unacceptable loopholes can be amended to close those loopholes at a later time. I believe you when you say the bathroom clause is your only objection. However I am dubious of the wider No Men in Women's Bathrooms coalition. Our friend YnOhTnA has already succinctly articulated that a ERO without a public accommodation clause is unacceptable and I think YnOhTnA more closely represents the LGBT community and the progressive side of Houston politics much better than I . So where does that leave us ? It leaves us stuck in noman's land (pun intended) with no ERO of any kind and little possibility it seems of a compromise.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Oh boy, this is going in circles. One last time, I don't think the infinitesimally small possibility of some rapist using HERO as a cover to commit a sexual assault was worth the PR hit that Houston has taken. No law is ever perfectly crafted in its original form and any law that is shown to have unacceptable loopholes can be amended to close those loopholes at a later time. I believe you when you say the bathroom clause is your only objection. However I am dubious of the wider No Men in Women's Bathrooms coalition. Our friend YnOhTnA has already succinctly articulated that a ERO without a public accommodation clause is unacceptable and I think YnOhTnA more closely represents the LGBT community and the progressive side of Houston politics much better than I . So where does that leave us ? It leaves us stuck in noman's land (pun intended) with no ERO of any kind and little possibility it seems of a compromise.

What specifically stopped them from dumping the original adding another ERO ordinance to the ballot that includes public accommodation but adds bathrooms to the exemption list?

I keep hearing this argument that giving Houston a bad reputation wasn't worth the restroom problem; however, the same people refuse to address why it was worth losing all of the ERO over the bathroom problem.

I think it makes most people wonder, because it certainly seems to make more sense to adopt a law without the bad parts than adopting a law with the bad parts on the promises it will be sorted out later.

Sorry, but some of us have been burnt way too many times on the "just do it now and we'll fix it later" promises of politicians.

Like I said, it would have been best for all parties to submit the law with a restroom exception, and the fact that they refused to do so says quite a lot.

[Tassy001]

I think it's time for everyone to agree to disagree and move on.

This is getting no where fast........

[Oildog]

We've had a couple weeks to discuss/complain about this issue. Time for all the new posters to go home. Thread closed.