The restroom thing nor the forged signatures matters in the ruling today. Once the petition was certified, the city council does not have the authority to second guess that decision. It either has to overturn the law or put it on the ballot. Given choice A or choice B, they tried to choose C.

The quote from BMX above is the crux of the matter.

The validity of the signatures was not at issue and the law says that it's not within the council's powers to make that call. They may very well be 100% fake. Ryan's assessment may be correct regarding that issue. That however, has no bearing on whether or not council followed the process in place.

The bathroom thing is a whole other matter.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Caitlyn Jenner can use the womens restroom and only the womens restroom.

---

Then what is the "lie"?

---

Fine. The bathroom lie is that these ordinances will allow a sexual predator to put on a dress, rape women and children in the bathroom, then claim to be transgender as an affirmative defense.

That lie has been peddled for at least the last 30-40 years, and as long as such laws have existed in the US, there have been zero - ZERO - cases where someone claimed to be transgender as a defense for criminal actions. The sad thing is that it works. Just tell people that this law will allow someone to rape them or their children and you get them all spun up about it, even thought it's not true.

Assault was illegal before the ordinance passed, and it remains illegal today. Somebody who is intent on committing a criminal act doesn't care what the law is.

---

I don't think that is what is being asserted. By your own admission, an individual with a *****, who claims to only be sexually attracted to women, must use the restroom with women under the ordinance.

quote:

---

Somebody who is intent on committing a criminal act doesn't care what the law is.

---

Which is why gun control advocacy is fallacy.
But I guess that's a different subject altogether.

quote:

---

I don't think that is what is being asserted.

---

Yes, it is exactly what is being asserted by opponents. It was and continues to be their primary opposition argument.

quote:

---

By your own admission, an individual with a *****, who claims to only be sexually attracted to women, must use the restroom with women under the ordinance.

---

Sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. In fact, they are very different. Using Caitlyn Jenner as an example, her attraction to women would make her sexual orientation lesbian. If she was attracted to men, her sexual orientation would be heterosexual.

Does that make sense?

No, because she is a man biologically.

68% of likely voters? Would be interesting to see where you got your poll data from.

The words bathroom or restroom do not appear anywhere in the ordinance. Furthermore, the burden is placed solely on a person claiming gender identity discrimination to prove what their gender identity is.

quote:

---

No, because he is a man biologically.

---

FIFY

quote:

---

68% of likely voters? Would be interesting to see where you got your poll data from.

---

It was a commissioned poll specifically for this purpose. The question included both sexual orientation AND gender identity.

quote:

---

The business community, on the other hand, is already freaking out about this because of the risk of damage to Houston's reputation is very high as it becomes ground zero for the first major LGBT-inclusive ballot issue since SCOTUS ruled on SSM.

---

Proof of this?

So you basically holding businesses hostage if the people have their say.


NIce

quote:

---

We have reliable polling data that has 68% of likely voters in favor of the ordinance, and the opponents won't be able to hang their hat on the bathroom lie for very long.

---

I actually think the whole "subpoena pastor's sermons" thing is going to be brought up again and the primary rallying cry of the opposition. That was the single biggest mistake of Parker's mayoral-ship and still carries political baggage, despite her backing away quickly.

On the plus side, local elections just got interesting.

quote:

---

quote:

---

68% of likely voters? Would be interesting to see where you got your poll data from.

---

It was a commissioned poll specifically for this purpose. The question included both sexual orientation AND gender identity.

---

link?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The business community, on the other hand, is already freaking out about this because of the risk of damage to Houston's reputation is very high as it becomes ground zero for the first major LGBT-inclusive ballot issue since SCOTUS ruled on SSM.

---

Proof of this?

So you basically holding businesses hostage if the people have their say.


NIce

---

I was standing in the room when a reporter had a conversation with an elected official about what was being said by major prominent representatives of the Houston business community. Other reporters mentioned to me the concerns they were hearing from major business leaders. The general consensus from them, and some additional polling on the issue by prominent local academics is that the public fight alone will be bad news for Houston's reputation. Business leaders are already concerned that Houston will lose the Super Bowl and other major events over this. They see it as a local version of what happened with Arizona and Indiana.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The business community, on the other hand, is already freaking out about this because of the risk of damage to Houston's reputation is very high as it becomes ground zero for the first major LGBT-inclusive ballot issue since SCOTUS ruled on SSM.

---

Proof of this?

So you basically holding businesses hostage if the people have their say.


NIce

---

I was standing in the room when a reporter had a conversation with an elected official about what was being said by major prominent representatives of the Houston business community. Other reporters mentioned to me the concerns they were hearing from major business leaders. The general consensus from them, and some additional polling on the issue by prominent local academics is that the public fight alone will be bad news for Houston's reputation. Business leaders are already concerned that Houston will lose the Super Bowl and other major events over this. They see it as a local version of what happened with Arizona and Indiana.

---

So Anecdotal evidence....Got.it

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

68% of likely voters? Would be interesting to see where you got your poll data from.

---

It was a commissioned poll specifically for this purpose. The question included both sexual orientation AND gender identity.

---

link?

---

It was a privately commissioned poll. It's not online.

You should not be able to use the women's restroom if you have a pecker and balls. It is that simple.
That is why people have a problem with the bathroom ordinance
If Caitlyn Jenner wants to get his pecker and balls cut off then he can use the women's restroom
Go big or go use the restroom that you were biologically assigned to

quote:

---

You should not be able to use the women's restroom if you have a pecker and balls. It is that simple.
That is why people have a problem with the bathroom ordinance
If Caitlyn Jenner wants to get his pecker and balls cut off then he can use the women's restroom
Go big or go use the restroom that you were biologically assigned to

---

The bathroom ordinance is posted above. It has been in effect for more than 50 years.

Why not put it to Vote the first time if you had "Polling" that you says you would win?

To be clear, a biological man that identifies as s woman must be allowed to use the women's restroom or that business will be in violation of the statute.

That's what people have a problem with.

Also what does the ordinance protect against that is not currently served by Laws on the books?

quote:

---

Why not put it to Vote the first time if you had "Polling" that you says you would win?

---

Because we have representative government not direct democracy. This is what we elect representatives to do. If you think we simply put everything to a vote, that's anywhere from 35 to 80 different votes per week.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not put it to Vote the first time if you had "Polling" that you says you would win?

---

Because we have representative government not direct democracy. This is what we elect representatives to do. If you think we simply put everything to a vote, that's anywhere from 35 to 80 different votes per week.

---

So ordinances and props are never voted on directly?

You are in local government?

Are you sure it isn't because in 2001 the citizens voted this down? Maybe?

quote:

---

Also what does the ordinance protect against that is not currently served by Laws on the books?

---

The ordinance creates a local mechanism for addressing discrimination. For example, if you are discriminated against in some form of public accommodation because you are a Christian, current laws would require you to file your complaint with the US Department of Justice or hire a lawyer and file a federal lawsuit. That is a very lengthy and expensive process. A federal lawsuit will cost you tens of thousands of dollars and DOJ will probably take about two years to get to your complaint.

This ordinance allows you to file your complaint with the Houston Inspector General, where it will be dealt with in a much simpler, faster, and less expensive way. The process in place by the ordinance places an emphasis on triaging complaints to weed out bogus complaints and mediation for legitimate complaints.

Simply put, it is a local solution to a local issue.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not put it to Vote the first time if you had "Polling" that you says you would win?

---

Because we have representative government not direct democracy. This is what we elect representatives to do. If you think we simply put everything to a vote, that's anywhere from 35 to 80 different votes per week.

---

So ordinances and props are never voted on directly?

You are in local government?

Are you sure it isn't because in 2001 the citizens voted this down? Maybe?

---

The last time any ordinance was voted on directly was in 1994. Propositions (Charter Amendments) are something different.

I have no idea what you are referring to having been voted down in 2001. It certainly wasn't this. the last time a public vote was taken to repeal a non-discrimination ordinance was in 1985.

quote:

---

Fine. The bathroom lie is that these ordinances will allow a sexual predator to put on a dress, rape women and children in the bathroom, then claim to be transgender as an affirmative defense.

---

Speaking of lies...

quote:

---

Fine. The bathroom lie is that these ordinances will allow a sexual predator to put on a dress, rape women and children in the bathroom, then claim to be transgender as an affirmative defense.

---

That's not even close to what the major opposition to the ordinance was, but you did a bang up job of falling into the typical trap of trying to bait and twist the argument into something it's not.

For most people, the fear of being raped in a bathroom has been greatly alleviated by the growth of Buccees locations.

Ryan,
As we speak most of the dem mayor candidates are lobbying HARD to their allies on Council to take the repeal ave. FACT. I know the guys involved. The last thing the dem candidates wNt is to have this on the Nov ballot. It passed 11-6 BUT the metrics have passed. Having the center seat is a hell ova lot more important than your ordinance to the power brokers you are counting on.
FACT: I've seen the numbers. Having this on the ballot will motivate a larger number of normally stay at home conservative voters and black church members than guys I your them.
This ord WILL be repealed !
You're not going to get a chance to see it voted in.

That may well happen, but it depends on what the Mayor decides to do since she controls the agenda. She's not running for re-election, so it doesn't hurt her by pushing it to the ballot. The Mayor has already given an indication she intends to put it on the ballot.

quote:

---

The expectation was always that the Texas Supreme Court would rule against the city because of its current makeup; it was only a matter of when that would happen.

---

Wait, so you're saying that you believe the Texas Supreme Court ruled the way it did because of the current makeup of the city council. Really?!?

You will be able to dress like a woman, and use the women's bathrooms (I am assuming showers and locker rooms are still off limits but maybe RTT can clarify?) as a man without fear of any repercussions as long as you aren't caught spying on women or little girls. You literally just have to say you identify as a woman, and no one can say sh** because it can't be proven. The majority must bow to the feewings of a very tiny segment of society once again.

Why can't we keep things the way they are again? Is there an epidemic of trans bashing or lynchings I am unaware of???

He saying that based on the make up of the Supreme Court they expected this ruling

In other words, because it's not filled with a bunch of liberals that make up the law as they go along they are not surprised that the Supreme Court followed the law

I'm not aware of any exception for showers or locker rooms in the ordinance

What about cis-trans-hybrids, men who identify as women but like to keep a traditional butch male appearance? They should be able to use women's bathrooms right?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The expectation was always that the Texas Supreme Court would rule against the city because of its current makeup; it was only a matter of when that would happen.

---

Wait, so you're saying that you believe the Texas Supreme Court ruled the way it did because of the current makeup of the city council. Really?!?

---

Pretty sure he was referring to the Texas Supreme Court.

quote:

---

You will be able to dress like a woman, and use the women's bathrooms (I am assuming showers and locker rooms are still off limits but maybe RTT can clarify?) as a man without fear of any repercussions as long as you aren't caught spying on women or little girls. You literally just have to say you identify as a woman, and no one can say sh** because it can't be proven. The majority must bow to the feewings of a very tiny segment of society once again.

Why can't we keep things the way they are again? Is there an epidemic of trans bashing or lynchings I am unaware of???

---

Not true.

The law places the burden of proof on the person being discriminated against (i.e. they must prove they are transgender)