quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Don't worry, they will be back with a legit petition soon enough.

---

Too late. The deadline was last July.

---

So you are saying there is not way to overturn this ordinance? Give me a break.

I can't wait until some mom post a picture of a dude in the women's restroom and creates a giant facebook firestorm. Porker is going to sheet her drawers so bad

---

No, they cannot, by law, submit a new petition for a repeal referendum. They had 30 days from publication of the ordinance, which was on June 3, 2014. The deadline to submit a valid petition to force a repeal referendum was July 3, 2014.

There are zero - ZERO - legitimate cases wherein someone assaulted a person in a restroom and used a non-discrimination ordinance as an affirmative defense. Assault of any kind was illegal in Houston before the passage of the ordinance, and it remains illegal today. There is already a law in effect that makes it a crime to enter a restroom of the opposite sex to cause a disturbance of any kind.

RTT, would the recent whataburger incident in Austin be against the COH ordinance?

"Austin Restaurant Turns Away Genderqueer Student In Women's Clothing"

This is a dood

I don't believe so because it was about what the person was wearing, not the person's gender identity or expression. I am not able to speak for the OIG, but I can't imagine a claim of discrimination being upheld in that instance.

I know how the OIG works because I've read reports and findings on discrimination complaints, and discrimination tends to be difficult to prove.

Yeah, It and the media was trying to make a big deal out of it in the news early in the week but they got shut down when the pictures of the dood in the leopard lingerie started making it out

WTF is genderqueer anyways?

Oops, I forgot to link the story

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/04/austin-restaurant-turns-away-genderqueer-student-in-womens-clothing-video.html

Just because someone says it's discrimination doesn't mean it is.

A lesbian who wants to get rid of pasties and granny panties. Color me shocked.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Didn't realize that was a problem in today's society.

---

Since the ordinance was passed, more than 100 reports of discrimination that would be covered under the ordinance have been received by the Inspector General, despite the ordinance not being in effect until today.

---

Talk about fraudulent.

This law just adds another layer of litigation anytime you have to fire a worthless slacker, only to find out he/she/it is in the newly created protected class.

What's not to like?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Didn't realize that was a problem in today's society.

---

Since the ordinance was passed, more than 100 reports of discrimination that would be covered under the ordinance have been received by the Inspector General, despite the ordinance not being in effect until today.

---

great, so trial lawyers are the real winners.

random post

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Didn't realize that was a problem in today's society.

---

Since the ordinance was passed, more than 100 reports of discrimination that would be covered under the ordinance have been received by the Inspector General, despite the ordinance not being in effect until today.

---

great, so trial lawyers are the real winners.

---

Not really. This ordinance only creates a class C misdemeanor offense, and does not create any civil cause of action. Only the State Legislature can do that.

Was it actually established as fact that "thousands of signatures were forged"?

quote:

---

This ordinance only creates a class C misdemeanor offense, and does not create any civil cause of action.

---

Class C? LOL!

I don't believe a city ordinance should be able to dictate who a business owner has to serve. It will be great when some business owner wipes his or her ass with a Class C misdemeanor.

I should add I don't feel affected by this ordinance and not really upset. If I owned a business, I would serve ANYONE as long as they had the right color money.

Just curious: Would a privately owned business be able to skirt this deal by becoming a membership-only club? Isn't that basically what Sam's is? You at least have to buy in to the business via membership fee to shop there.

quote:

---

That is actually correct that anyone can use any restroom.
Ryan is wrong in claiming that to be incorrect.

---

Your claim is unequivocally false. You can keep repeating the claim, but it doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This ordinance only creates a class C misdemeanor offense, and does not create any civil cause of action.

---

Class C? LOL!

I don't believe a city ordinance should be able to dictate who a business owner has to serve. It will be great when some business owner wipes his or her ass with a Class C misdemeanor.

I should add I don't feel affected by this ordinance and not really upset. If I owned a business, I would serve ANYONE as long as they had the right color money.

Just curious: Would a privately owned business be able to skirt this deal by becoming a membership-only club? Isn't that basically what Sam's is? You at least have to buy in to the business via membership fee to shop there.

---

Read the ordinance and you will find your answer. You can also read Boy Scouts vs. Dale.

Some people will view a class C misdemeanor as a cost of doing business, and that's their prerogative. FedEx and UPS budget millions of dollars a year for parking tickets because it costs them less to pay tickets than it does to obey parking laws. However, experience in other Texas cities with similar laws has shown the overwhelming majority of discrimination cases will never reach the point of prosecution.

quote:

---

I mean, congratulations Ryan on amassing an army of high powered attorneys to keep a **phenomenally unpopular** initiative out of the hands of the people and off the ballot. All the good government types should be applauding this impressive victory.

---

I had absolutely nothing to do with defending the lawsuit. What is it you think I do for the City?

Oh, and if by "phenomenally unpopular" you mean "68% of Houstonians support the ordinance," then you're spot on. The people who kept it off the ballot are the people who forged thousands of signatures because they got paid per signature.

I work for the city Ryan. I would have no reason to lie.
If someone says they identify a certain way they go to that restroom. No further questions asked.

quote:

---

Was it actually established as fact that "thousands of signatures were forged"?

---

Yes. The plaintiffs (petition organizers) demanded a jury trial, and the jury found rampant forgeries.

quote:

---

I work for the city Ryan. I would have no reason to lie.
If someone says they identify a certain way they go to that restroom. No further questions asked.

---

EO 1-50 has never been applied that way. And as stated previously, there are existing laws that regulate entry to restrooms. This ordinance doesn't even include the word "restroom" or "bathroom."

So which establishments are discriminating against gays?

quote:

---

So which establishments are discriminating against gays?

---

You don't get it. It's not about which ones are, It's about the potential of discrimination.

quote:

---

So which establishments are discriminating against gays?

---

I'm not sure if the reports are confidential if they were filed with the OIG while the ordinance was not in effect, but you can always make a request under TPIA for the information. Now that the ordinance is in effect, at the very least, investigations going forward are confidential unless they result in prosecution.

So you don't know of any?

quote:

---

So you don't know of any?

---

See page 1 of this thread.

I don't see where you named any one that discriminated.

Contrary to what is apparently popular belief on here, people don't call me up every time discrimination happens. I am not the arbiter of all things discrimination in this city. You can do the same thing I had to do - file an open records request with the OIG for the information you are seeking.

I can tell you the OIG did confirm numerous complaints of discrimination relating to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. The request was referred to the Attorney General for further review, upon which the details of the complaints were determined to be protected from release to the public.

So all I have to do to legitimately use a bathroom with women is feel like a female? If people report me and cops show up and question me, all I have to do is tell them that I identify as a woman?

Can't wait until gays no longer have this city by the balls.

quote:

---

So all I have to do to legitimately use a bathroom with women is feel like a female? If people report me and cops show up and question me, all I have to do is tell them that I identify as a woman?

Can't wait until gays no longer have this city by the balls.

---

No. It doesn't work that way.