Really, Houston?? (housing, gay friendly, racist)

[curbur]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

Not just that, but transwhatevertheyarecallednows are an infinitesimal segment of the population. Despite the heavy representation in the media, gays are only estimated to be 2-5% of the populations. Tranhumans have to be MUCH smaller than even that. So one valid criticism that has nothing to do with morals or religion is that it is silly to spend public resources on a group of people that are a fraction of a percent of the population.

Indonesians make up that much population % in this city; why do they need protections too? How about everything under 30% of a population majority be excluded from discriminatiom laws? Have you ever looked up "tyranny of the masses"?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by testmo

Chronicle oct 6 2014. The straight baptist rapist name is chad foster.

Where is the outrage here? Where's the protests against these churches?

There is often a ton of disgusting hypocrisy when it comes to religious organizations and what they support.

[crone]

Let's review the bidding on this thing.

The coh passed it.

Some churches filed suit.

The mayor and the city attorney let a law firm handle the suit, pro bono, without them reviewing anything. Pretty much ignored it.

That firm asked for all copies of everything including sermons

Chit hit the fan with the churches Big explosion

The writing was on the wall. The city attorney quits and goes to work for son's new firm

No liberal mayor because the religious vote and the liberals don't

If the results weren't so painful, it could really be fun watching the arrogant get played so easily. Lee Atwater would be loving this.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Charlestondata

Columbia, South Carolina, just booted out an anti-LGBT-rights at-large city council rep who was elected partially on LBGT support but then nearly died from an ailment and had an epiphany that he said changed his life and made him rethink what's really the truth versus relativism. He started voting no at City Hall on ordinances that have advanced the city's LGBT rights. He came in a weak third yesterday. The two candidates who will now have a run-off in two weeks each support Columbia's LGBT community. Disappointed Houstonians could stay and fight or move to Columbia.

The fact is that there are plenty of places that have moved into the 21st century on this issue. Good for Columbia.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by 3shipguy

Wrong. It wasn't transgender = pedophile. It was pedophiles/perverts being able to go in any bathroom depending on "their perceived" gender identity.

Exactly.

You wouldn't have to wear a dress or makeup if you were a man and wanted to go into the women's restroom or locker, all you would have to do is claim that you identified as a woman at that moment.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

What specifically makes me crazy on this? I'm asking a legitimate question. If the fear about the bill was about the potential of pedophiles entering into a restroom, how can they not actually still do that today even though the bill was rejected?

It's about opportunity.

If you lock your car or your home, any criminal can simply break a window to gain access, so why do we put locks on our vehicles and homes and whey do we use them?

Well, as any cop or DA will tell you, you have and use locks to stop crimes of opportunity.

Keeping men out of the women's restrooms or locker rooms reduces the possibility of sexual crimes of opportunity.

If you're not getting this, I'd be more than happy to clarify further.

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Houston was given a chance on the national stage to demonstrate that it has matured into a modern progressive city. Well . . . EPIC FAIL! No amount of perfume is going to cover this turd.

So, allowing men into the women's restroom is a sign of being a modern city?

Really?

Originally Posted by texas7

I'm certain the bathroom deal sunk it. But I also don't think it was because people assume that transgenders are pedophiles.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Yes, we've been talking about the restroom thing, but this really affects all gay people in Houston. It can't be argued that Houston is in any way gay friendly when things like this happen.

So, you're saying that all gay men in Houston want to be able to go into the women's restrooms?

Sorry, but I don't believe that to be the case.

-------------------------

Let's not play games here, this was about the restroom aspect, and if restrooms were added to the exemptions section of HERO, HERO would have passed.

If restrooms are such an important issue to the transgender segment of our society, how about we do this.

Let's give any business that adds a new unisex bathroom a tax credit for the amount of money they spent to add that extra restroom.

If this were to occur, businesses could add a unisex restroom without being out a bunch of money, transgenders could use it, everyone else would have an additional restroom choice and nobody is forced to do anything.

What would be the problem with this other than the COH would lose some tax revenue.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

I know. It's absolutely insane that Houston voters wouldn't want dudes with penises dressed up as women lurking around the ladies rooms. This place really is a social backwater filled with bigots and haters.

I asked a question in the city vs city forum if there was a fearful campaign behind it's defeat. I think I got my answer with this post. lol Politics are something else.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by texsn95

Thanks for doing Houston a favor.

I can assure you the pleasure is overwhelmingly mine.

[detachable arm]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Yes, we've been talking about the restroom thing, but this really affects all gay people in Houston. It can't be argued that Houston is in any way gay friendly when things like this happen.

Houston has never been gay friendly.

Tolerant yes, under certain conditions.

[texasroots77]

If the mayor didn't hang her hat on that specific liberal agenda, the bill probably would have passed.

No, she want to push the envelope and end up bringing everybody and their mother to hate this bill.

Extremely dumb execution.

Could not agree more! And I am happy the voters saw through this. I don't see the issue and would assume transgender people are already using the restrooms of the sex they identify with. Yes you could say it is illegal but who is to know or care? If you dress, feel and act as a male/female no one would know or likely care unless you yourself want to make an issue of it which bathroom you use.

[jbcmh81]

PedroMartinez;41804683]

You wouldn't have to wear a dress or makeup if you were a man and wanted to
go into the women's restroom or locker, all you would have to do is claim that
you identified as a woman at that moment.

Why can't they do that now? Surely now the idea of this is out there and has been for a long time. I asked this earlier, but what's the actual rate of incidence of this?

And you're still saying that a fear of a hypothetical situation exceeds the rights of an actual group of real people in real, rather than imagined, situations. How the hell does that make sense to anyone?

It's about opportunity.

No it isn't, because they continue to have the opportunity, and did before the bill was rejected.

If you lock your car or your home, any criminal can simply break a window to
gain access, so why do we put locks on our vehicles and homes and whey do we use
them?

Big time apples and oranges. Locks at least make it physically more difficult to commit the crime. What makes the entering of a restroom by a pedophile physically more difficult now that the bill was rejected? The actual level of threat didn't change whatsoever with its failure, but its failure DID affect real, non-imaginary people in a negative way. If you were looking to protect kids/women in bathrooms, you did absolutely nothing to do that. Congratulations.

Well, as any cop or DA will tell you, you have and use locks to stop crimes
of opportunity.

And you didn't stop crimes of opportunity by rejecting the bill.

Keeping men out of the women's restrooms or locker rooms reduces the
possibility of sexual crimes of opportunity.

You didn't do that, though. It's a complete lie. Unless you believe that legitimately transgendered people have a high likelihood to sexually assault people, of which there is zero evidence anywhere for.

If you're not getting this, I'd be more than happy to clarify further.

I'm definitely getting it, but probably not what you intended.

So, allowing men into the women's restroom is a sign of being a modern city?

Allowing men into a women's restroom had nothing to do with the bill. Allowing transgendered people to use the restroom of their gender identity, however, was part of it. And a modern city with progressive, empathetic citizens certainly would've moved this forward.

So, you're saying that all gay men in Houston want to be able to go into the
women's restrooms?

The bill wasn't just about bathrooms and transgendered. It was a nondiscrimination bill for all gays. Transgendered people, btw, aren't necessarily gay. So when you voted it down, you didn't just affect one group. So again, congratulations.

Sorry, but I don't believe that to be the case.

Me neither, that's why I didn't say that.
-------------------------

Let's not play games here, this was about the restroom aspect, and if
restrooms were added to the exemptions section of HERO, HERO would have
passed.

If restrooms are such an important issue to the transgender segment of our
society, how about we do this.

Let's give any business that adds a new unisex bathroom a tax credit for the
amount of money they spent to add that extra restroom.

If this were to occur, businesses could add a unisex restroom without being
out a bunch of money, transgenders could use it, everyone else would have an
additional restroom choice and nobody is forced to do anything.

What would be the problem with this other than the COH would lose some tax
revenue.

I have no issue with unisex bathrooms... except that there's an obvious and glaringly hilarious problem. If you believe that men in women's restrooms invites opportunity for sexual assault, how in the world could you support a unisex bathroom in which both would obviously share them? Talk about a confusing position. I think you need to go back to the drawing board, because your positions directly contradict one another.