A win for common sense and rationality
(NY Times) A yearlong battle over gay and transgender rights that turned into a costly, ugly war of words between this city’s lesbian mayor and social conservatives ended Tuesday as voters repealed an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities.
The City Council passed the measure in May, but it was in limbo after opponents succeeded, following a lengthy court fight, in putting the matter to a referendum.
The Times seems a bit upset that citizens would be allowed to vote on this.
Supporters said the ordinance was similar to those approved in 200 other cities and prohibited bias in housing, employment, city contracting and business services for 15 protected classes, including race, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents said the measure would allow men claiming to be women to enter women’s bathrooms and inflict harm, and that simple message — “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms†— was plastered on signs and emphasized in television and radio ads, turning the debate from one about equal rights to one about protecting women and girls from sexual predators.
In reality, this ordinance was all about pandering to the tiny LGBT community and the liberals who support them, and creating yet another class of people who are protected over others. There was nothing in this about equal protection. Strangely, the Times, like so many other news outlets, forgets to include the voting results. Let’s check the AP
With nearly 95 percent of precincts reporting, Houston residents had rejected the ordinance by a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent.
That’s a pretty big margin against the ordinance.
The ordinance would have applied to businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants and hotels, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. It would have allowed residents to file a complaint if they felt they had been discriminated against based on the various protected categories. Religious institutions would have been exempt. Violators would have faced fines up to $5,000.
In other words, it would have given a small number of people the ability to make wild, unsubstantiated claims against businesses that could result in government penalties, instead of the person simply doing what used to be done: never patronize the business again, and tell all your friends to avoid the business.
You can bet that Progressives will not allow this vote by the citizens of Houston to stand: surely, lawsuits will be filed by the end of the week.
(Houston Chronicle) Kristen Capps, a Houston attorney who supported the ordinance, remained optimistic after Tuesday’s defeat.
“It’s just like every civil rights movement. We’re just going to keep on doing it until it’s done,” she said.
Except, long established law provides for equal protection under the law. This law was about providing un-equal protection. And liberals don’t like it when they lose, and will not allow the will of the people to stand. This isn’t about civil rights, it’s about politics.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
So 69% of the people voting don’t want Mrs. Doubtfire legally whipping it out in front of their little girls.
Wait until tne most corrupt president in history’s Dept. of Transgender Justice gets a hold of this.
Your story is referenced on RedState as well as my poor site.
The problem with being nice, the problem with being understanding, of the left’s agenda, is that, given an inch, they will sue you for the mile, and demand that they can educate your children to agree to the next mile beyond that.