This is the sort of thing that keeps me on the Right. You can't have conscientiously opposed Houston's Proposition 1 on the merits. If you voted "No," then you must simply be a "hater" or at best, "ignorant." These Left-wing nuts mock the argument that's centered around not wanting men in the women's bathroom, while spouting a mess of ********. I'm generally pretty calm, but this issue is so blatantly absurd that it's hard for me not to draw the line.
First, the ordinance absolutely would have authorized criminal action against those who wanted to keep men (or what we used to call "men") out of the women's bathroom. The argument was raised, because it was truthful. I know East Coat elites and bedwetters like to roll their eyes and scoff when opponents of this sort of thing raise the question of how we're supposed to know the "gender identity" of the person's entering the bathroom, but they never have an answer beyond the smugness and eye-rolling. If a person with a penis (since we can't call that a man anymore) enters the women's room, how do the persons with vaginas (formerly known as "women") inside know that the person with a penis who has entered the restroom is really a "woman" and therefore not a threat to them in spite of his/her anatomy and appearance? Furthermore, if the person with a penis is denied entry and files a criminal complaint, how does the prosecution carry its burden of proof and show that the person with a penis was actually woman and therefore discriminated against? And yes, questions like that should be asked. We're talking about enacting a law that's going to have real consequences in the courtroom and on the rights of individuals on both sides.
Of course, it would also have subjected the cake bakers and caterers to criminal action if they didn't want to do business with the gay weddings. I know the Left is wholly unsympathetic to that issue, but they should respect the opinions of those who don't want that can of worms opened.
Just to be clear, I do NOT equate the trans issue with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They are often lumped together but actually have very little in common. I could much sooner go along with an ordinance that protected gays from discrimination over this goofy trans nonsense.
Second, the pro-Prop 1 people frequently bring up as a merit of the ordinance that it applies to protected classes beyond the transgender community. ******** argument, because with respect to those classes, the ordinance was almost entirely superfluous with other laws. Federal laws exist to protect those classes. However, if you don't want the hassle and expense of litigating in federal court, Texas has anti-discrimination laws of its own, so victims of discrimination can opt for the easier and less costly state court option. They don't need this stupid ordinance to seek justice. That whole angle was a ruse. The ordinance was about the LGBT issue and nothing else, and the advocates added other classes in order to obfuscate what they were actually trying to do.
On most of the elections that happened this week, I was largely indifferent. I don't care about the GOP winning in Kentucky. I did kinda like seeing Terry McAulliffe not getting a majority in the Virginia Senate, because he's a worthless politician. However, I certainly did want to see this Prop. 1 garbage get voted down and see the Mayor of Houston discredited for her disgusting and abusive actions on this issue. Well done, Houstonians. If we do need a new criminal ordinance, it should be directed at mayors who use their power to crap on the constitutional rights of pastors who had the audacity to oppose their agenda.
First, the ordinance absolutely would have authorized criminal action against those who wanted to keep men (or what we used to call "men") out of the women's bathroom. The argument was raised, because it was truthful. I know East Coat elites and bedwetters like to roll their eyes and scoff when opponents of this sort of thing raise the question of how we're supposed to know the "gender identity" of the person's entering the bathroom, but they never have an answer beyond the smugness and eye-rolling. If a person with a penis (since we can't call that a man anymore) enters the women's room, how do the persons with vaginas (formerly known as "women") inside know that the person with a penis who has entered the restroom is really a "woman" and therefore not a threat to them in spite of his/her anatomy and appearance? Furthermore, if the person with a penis is denied entry and files a criminal complaint, how does the prosecution carry its burden of proof and show that the person with a penis was actually woman and therefore discriminated against? And yes, questions like that should be asked. We're talking about enacting a law that's going to have real consequences in the courtroom and on the rights of individuals on both sides.
Of course, it would also have subjected the cake bakers and caterers to criminal action if they didn't want to do business with the gay weddings. I know the Left is wholly unsympathetic to that issue, but they should respect the opinions of those who don't want that can of worms opened.
Just to be clear, I do NOT equate the trans issue with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They are often lumped together but actually have very little in common. I could much sooner go along with an ordinance that protected gays from discrimination over this goofy trans nonsense.
Second, the pro-Prop 1 people frequently bring up as a merit of the ordinance that it applies to protected classes beyond the transgender community. ******** argument, because with respect to those classes, the ordinance was almost entirely superfluous with other laws. Federal laws exist to protect those classes. However, if you don't want the hassle and expense of litigating in federal court, Texas has anti-discrimination laws of its own, so victims of discrimination can opt for the easier and less costly state court option. They don't need this stupid ordinance to seek justice. That whole angle was a ruse. The ordinance was about the LGBT issue and nothing else, and the advocates added other classes in order to obfuscate what they were actually trying to do.
On most of the elections that happened this week, I was largely indifferent. I don't care about the GOP winning in Kentucky. I did kinda like seeing Terry McAulliffe not getting a majority in the Virginia Senate, because he's a worthless politician. However, I certainly did want to see this Prop. 1 garbage get voted down and see the Mayor of Houston discredited for her disgusting and abusive actions on this issue. Well done, Houstonians. If we do need a new criminal ordinance, it should be directed at mayors who use their power to crap on the constitutional rights of pastors who had the audacity to oppose their agenda.
