Showdown in Houston over LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance

[webfact]

Showdown in Houston over LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance
By JUAN A. LOZANO and DAVID CRARY

HOUSTON (AP) — After a drawn-out showdown between Houston's popular lesbian mayor and a coalition of conservative pastors, voters in the nation's fourth-largest city will soon decide whether to establish nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people.

Nationwide, there's interest in the Nov. 3 referendum: Confrontations over the same issue are flaring in many places, at the state and local level, now that nondiscrimination has replaced same-sex marriage as the No. 1 priority for the LGBT-rights movement.

"The vote in Houston will carry national significance," said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights group. She noted that Houston, with 2.2 million residents, is more populous than 15 states.

The contested Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is a broad measure that would consolidate existing bans on discrimination tied to race, sex, religion and other categories in employment, housing and public accommodations, and extend such protections to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

The outcome is considered uncertain. Two recent polls commissioned by Houston TV stations showed supporters of the ordinance with a slight lead, but each poll indicated that about one-fifth of likely voters were undecided.

Opponents contend the ordinance would infringe on their religious beliefs against homosexuality. Copying a tactic used elsewhere, they also have labeled it the "bathroom ordinance," alleging that it would open the door for sexual predators to go into women's restrooms.

"Even registered sex offenders could follow women or young girls into the bathroom," says an ad produced by Campaign for Houston, which opposes the ordinance.

The measure's supporters denounce these assertions as scare tactics, arguing that such problems with public bathrooms have been virtually nonexistent in the 17 states that have banned discrimination based on gender identity.

Mayor Annise Parker, whose election in 2009 made Houston the largest U.S. city with an openly gay mayor, is among those expressing exasperation.

"The fact there is so much misinformation and not just misinformation, just out and out ludicrous lies, is very frustrating," Parker recently told reporters. "I'm worried about the image of Houston around the world as a tolerant, welcoming place if this goes down."

Parker has vented some of her frustration on Twitter in tweets criticizing former Houston Astros player Lance Berkman. In ads for Campaign for Houston, Berkman said the ordinance would "allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, showers and locker rooms."

Parker, who is completing her third and final term, has encountered criticism herself. When opponents sued the city — seeking to force a referendum on the ordinance after the city council approved it in May 2014 — city attorneys tried to subpoena sermons from five pastors who opposed the measure. The pastors said the request violated their religious freedom, and the city later dropped the effort.

The lawsuit eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court, which in July ruled the conservative activists should have succeeded in their petition drive to put the issue before voters.

In a sermon last month, Ed Young, pastor of Second Baptist Church, one of the nation's largest churches, called the ordinance "totally deceptive" and urged his congregation to vote against it because "it will carry our city ... further down the road of being totally, in my opinion, secular and godless."

Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Houston Unites, which supports the ordinance, said the measure is not simply about anti-LGBT discrimination but about multiple forms of bias. Between May 2014 and September 2015, most discrimination complaints in the city related to race and gender; only about 5 percent involved LGBT discrimination.

Several national LGBT-rights groups have deployed staff in Houston to support the ordinance, including Freedom for All Americans. Its CEO, Matt McTighe, praised Houston's cultural diversity, but said it was the only one of the 10 largest U.S. cities without LGBT non-discrimination protection.

For years, the top priority of the gay-rights movement in the U.S. was winning nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. When that occurred via a Supreme Court ruling in June, there was broad agreement among activists that the next priority should be obtaining nondiscrimination protections in all 50 states.

At present, Texas is one of 28 states with no statewide protections, although many municipalities in those states have adopted local nondiscrimination policies. Of the other 22 states, 17 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations, and New York will soon join that group. Four states have less sweeping protections.

LGBT activists would like to replace this patchwork of laws with a comprehensive federal nondiscrimination law, and such a measure — the Equality Act — was introduced in July. But it's given no chance of passage in the current Republican-controlled Congress; none of its more than 200 co-sponsors are from the GOP.

Faced with that reality, LGBT-rights supporters are waging a state-by-state, city-by-city campaign to extend anti-bias protections.

"We're now at a moment where we're having conversations with more conservative parts of the country — it's not easy," said Sarah Warbelow. "These are educational efforts — bringing people along on what it means to provide protections for the LGBT community and helping people understand that the sky doesn't fall when you do that."

At the state level, activists consider Pennsylvania the most likely to join in establishing statewide protections.

LGBT nondiscrimination has been on the Pennsylvania legislature's agenda for more than a decade but there's never been a floor vote, largely due to Republican opposition. Now there's growing GOP support for the latest measure, introduced in August, and supporters believe it will prevail if skeptics can be assured it won't erode religious liberties.

"I'm confident that if this bill is given a vote in the Senate and House, it will pass," said state Sen. Pat Browne, a lead Republican sponsor. "The people we represent believe this is something we should do."

In Indiana, prospects are unclear for a Democratic plan — backed by many major corporations — to push for statewide LGBT protections. The topic has been divisive since the spring, when Republican Gov. Mike Pence and the GOP-controlled Legislature incurred a backlash for a religious objections law that critics said would allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people.

In the absence of a statewide law, several smaller Indiana cities — including Pence's hometown of Columbus — recently joined Indianapolis and Bloomington in adopting local LGBT protections. Similar efforts failed in the cities of Goshen and Elkhart.

There's been action recently in several other states. In September, Fayetteville became the fifth Arkansas municipality to pass an LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance in defiance of a new state law aimed at prohibiting such local protections. In Alaska's largest city, the governing assembly of Anchorage passed an ordinance Sept. 29 by a 9-2 vote. In Arizona, an ordinance was approved in Sedona.

Other cities across the U.S. will be watching Houston on Nov. 3, said James Douglas, a supporter of the ordinance who is president of Houston's NAACP chapter.

"All those cities that are smaller than us are looking to us because they want to be like us," Douglas said. "And we want to give them a perfect example of what a major, diverse city ought to look like."
___

David Crary reported from New York.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-10-26

[Seastallion]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

[Jingthing]

National non-discrimination legislation is needed. Then these local ordinances would be irrelevant. We are a long way from that but I'm sure when Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes president she will try to lead the country in that direction, as she has promised. But passing it in congress ... that's the problem.

[Credo]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

It's called a democratic process and it is overseen by a constitution. Of course, some people come from 'free countries' that aren't so free and have given up their rights to a Union of other nations.

Gay issues have been a long battle and there aren't a lot of places in the world that have been tolerant.

This generation will almost see an end to this type of discrimination.

[Seastallion]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

It's called a democratic process and it is overseen by a constitution. Of course, some people come from 'free countries' that aren't so free and have given up their rights to a Union of other nations.

Gay issues have been a long battle and there aren't a lot of places in the world that have been tolerant.

This generation will almost see an end to this type of discrimination.

That just highlights one of the major flaws of democracy; If the unwashed mob all say "We want all witches to be locked up", then the majority has spoken and it shall be done.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Seastallion

[Dustdevil]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

It's only about gay MARRIAGE, not about common law marriage. And in case you didn't notice, the Houston mayor is gay.

[Dustdevil]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

It's called a democratic process and it is overseen by a constitution. Of course, some people come from 'free countries' that aren't so free and have given up their rights to a Union of other nations.

Gay issues have been a long battle and there aren't a lot of places in the world that have been tolerant.

This generation will almost see an end to this type of discrimination.

That just highlights one of the major flaws of democracy; If the unwashed mob all say "We want all witches to be locked up", then the majority has spoken and it shall be done.

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

[Jingthing]

It's only about gay MARRIAGE, not about common law marriage. And in case you didn't notice, the Houston mayor is gay.

Sorry, but your information is very OUTDATED.

Same sex marriage is now fully 100 percent legal in all 50 U.S. states and most territories as well.

The U.S. GLBT civil rights movement has moved on to combating discrimination in other areas such as employment, housing, parenting rights, etc.

In many U.S. states, for example, it is still legal to fire people only because it has become known they are a GLBT person. The vast majority of Americans oppose such bigotry and humorously the majority think such discrimination is ALREADY illegal. But it isn't. That's why this is headed to be a NATIONAL issue. Rather than play games with thousands of local ordinances ... make it all FEDERAL.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

[smokie36]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

Yes I read it and my eyes were popping out of my head.

We've had this in the UK for as long as I can remember and there was no vote on it....its just basic humanity.

Funny even in Thailand with fewer laws protecting minorities there is less discrimination in many areas than you will find in bible thumping America.

[smokie36]

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

That's an absolute disgrace.

[Jingthing]

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

That's an absolute disgrace.

Yes, and it's a good political wedge issue for Hillary Clinton and the democratic party. As I've said the vast majority of Americans are against people being fired only for such status and the republican party by positioning itself in favor of such government sanctioned bigotry has a weak spot exposed. Whether she can actually pass such protections nationally is another question. The issue is complicated by resistance to accepting GLBT as a specific minority identity group at the national level that can seek such national protections. Other identity groups such as based on religion, race, gender (as opposed to gender IDENTITY) and ethnicity can of course and do already.

50 state same sex marriage legalization was indeed a HUGE and historic victory for the U.S. GLBT civil rights movement. But that movement is not over. It may well take another 50 years to finish the job as far as full national legal protections in all the areas it's indicated. I think sooner than that but hard to predict.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[squarethecircle]

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

That's an absolute disgrace.

Don't see why it's a disgrace, this is private business and there is a long-standing principle - which I believe goes back to the Magna Carta - that in private interactions people are free to associate with who they want to associate with, in business or personal life. The lefties find exception to this and are quite willing to use legislation to stick their noses into people's private affairs.

[ClutchClark]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

It's called a democratic process and it is overseen by a constitution. Of course, some people come from 'free countries' that aren't so free and have given up their rights to a Union of other nations.

Gay issues have been a long battle and there aren't a lot of places in the world that have been tolerant.

This generation will almost see an end to this type of discrimination.

That just highlights one of the major flaws of democracy; If the unwashed mob all say "We want all witches to be locked up", then the majority has spoken and it shall be done.

In this article, the unwashed mob are saying that its OK for men to use the ladies public rest room and if that passes, then many of us are stuck with what the majority has spoken.

[ClutchClark]

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

Please provide specific contemporary examples to support this statement.

Thank you

[Jingthing]

Actually the U.S. constitution prevents that by protecting unpopular ideas in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. No referendum can be held nor congressional law passed abridging the Bill of Rights.

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

Please provide specific contemporary examples to support this statement.

Thank you

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/22/8465027/lgbt-nondiscrimination-laws

How most states allow discrimination against LGBTQ people

...

31 states don't ban discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace

...

Surveys show that Stone's experience isn't the norm among LGBTQ Americans, but it's still fairly common. A 2011 review of the research by the Williams Institute, a think tank focused on LGBTQ issues, found that between 2003 and 2007, about 9.2 percent of openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people reportedly lost a job, and 38.2 percent were harassed at work, due to their sexual orientation.

http://mic.com/articles/121496/one-map-shows-where-you-can-still-be-fired-for-being-gay-in-2015

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

It's not that simple. As I've mentioned it is legal in many U.S. states to fire people just for known GLBT status. No actions need, just GLBT identity.

Please provide specific contemporary examples to support this statement.

Thank you

http://mic.com/articles/121496/one-map-shows-where-you-can-still-be-fired-for-being-gay-in-2015

I am not trying to be argumentative but that link did (edit:NOT) provide an example of someone who suffered discrimination in the workplace because of their membership in the LGBT community.

Edited October 26, 2015 by ClutchClark

[Jingthing]

Yes it did. You are trying to be argumentative. I get your game. You're acting like this doesn't happen. Trust me. It happens.

[ClutchClark]

Yes it did. You are trying to be argumentative. I get your game. You're acting like this doesn't happen. Trust me. It happens.

Jing, I am attempting to have a rational discussion with you but you are now puting words in my mouth.

This is obviously a subject you feel very strongly about and it appears to cloud your ability to have rational dialogue.

I asked for a specific example and what I found in your link did not provide any specific cases of discrimination. Instead, it presented a list of States where apparently discrimination could occur, which is not the same thing.

Perhaps I misread what you posted. Could you please provide a link to a specific case.

Thank you

[Jingthing]

Yes it did. Look closer.

I am not your googlebot.

You can google this and find lots of specific cases if you're really concerned, which I seriously doubt.

If you're suggesting this really doesn't happen, it's rich that you suggest I am not the rational one.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Again, the cases exist. I am not your google servant and if you can't be bothered to even read links provided, we're done. Either you support this civil rights struggle, or not. Are you even American? Converting you? With your attitude, starting from an ignorant assumption of DENIAL that this discrimination even exists, I doubt that's possible as your bias is totally obvious.

Also your premise is pretty absurd to begin with. It's a typical diversion. The issue is to provide the legal equality under the law. Whether it protects 1000 people or a million people is irrelevant. It's the right thing to do. Period.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Moving on, as this national struggle is now focused in HOUSTON, some more in depth info about it from a leading newspaper. Anti GLBT bigots will stop at nothing, as usual. They lost the marriage equality battle, but they will clearly keep fighting this civil rights movement at every turn, using every dirty trick in the book.

The battle over Houston’s nondiscrimination law took a real ugly turn last week when opponents aired one of the most outrageous and disgustingly deceptive ads in their effort to repeal it at the ballot box in November. Even though the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) protects 15 different characteristics from discrimination in Texas’s largest city, those who want to kill the legislation are focused on only one of them: gender identity. And they are ginning up support and misinformed hysteria by calling it “the bathroom ordinance.”

What goes too far is this bigoted ad and its perversion of the facts. It is an outright lie to say “any man at any time could enter a woman’s bathroom at any time simply by claiming to be a woman that day.” Such a statement reveals a willful ignorance of what it means to be transgender. In addition, the so-called “bathroom ordinance” people completely ignore a rather specific Houston law that has been on the books since 1972.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/10/19/a-perverted-campaign-against-lgbt-rights-in-houston/?postshare=7571445289788982

A promotion for the Houston HERO ordinance. Discrimination is wrong!

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

Ahhhh...the ignore list...where peace & quiet and harmony reigns.

For everyone else, I really am curious if anyone can produce a court decision or a case that has gone to arbitration of discrimination against and because of a person's LGBT membership. It can't just be an, "Well we all know it happens", it needs to be a well documented example of what Jing is so emotional about.

I have mixed opinion on this since my grandson is a member of that community so I am concerned for his future; however, I don't like the idea that specisl groups in the US should receive special consideration or unique legal protections above any other American. Y'know the "We Are All Created Equal" thing.

For example, two guys get into a fight and one is gay and one is not. Well, I don't want to see the non-gay guy get a stiffer penalty and be accused of a hate crime while the other guy, who is gay, receives a far more lenient sentence...all other things being equal.

Or in the case of the workplace, I don't want to see an under-achieving LGBT member with a poor performance record get to keep their job by playing a "LGBT card" while a non-LGBT member would be dismissed since they do not have that unique protection Jing thinks is so necessary.

I already feel a huge amount of discrimination from Jing for my being heterosexual. He has banned me from even having a conversation.

Edited October 26, 2015 by ClutchClark

[sgtsabai]

Do your own research. You have brought up the old bigoted, racist false lie about favoritism because one has a different skin color, religious preference, sexual orientation or political belief they will receive benefits or special treatment, wrong. It is just a right wing wrong headed as it always has been. Having grown up just east of Houston and spent quite a bit of party time there back in the late 60/70's I believe that although I have been absent Texass for many years, not enough, I know a bit about Houston. I've had a few beers in the Montrose District back when. Yes it was the gay, artsy fartsy area, but we all had a good time there. I liked Prufrocks quite a bit for a few quiet drinks with my friends, male and female and take my word for it, none of us were gay or lesbian. Oh, I do like the bisexual ladies in threesomes. You want to argue a point, don't do it from your own bigoted beliefs. Try logic. The people of Houston elected an openly lesbian mayor, Annise Danette Parker (born May 17, 1956) who has been elected Houston Mayor three times, serving since January 2, 2010. She also served as an at-large member of the Houston City Council from 1998 to 2003 and city controller from 2004 to 2010. Parker is Houston's second female mayor (after Kathy Whitmire), and one of the first openly gay mayors of a major U.S. city, with Houston being the most populous U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor. This should never have come up for a vote. Right wing religious wacko bigots you know, kinda' like some of the people that post here, caused the vote. Ahem, we are all created equal, whether bigots, misogynists, racists, right wing wackos want to admit it or not. Nobody gives a damn about your sexual preference.

[squarethecircle]

Not so sure about that. I was working as management/supervisor over a team of 10 at a large organization and we had one employee who was caught falsifying his salary records - blatant, indefensible falsification that effectively amounted to theft of hundreds of dollars, plus the fact that he was signing on a dotted line made it a criminal offense as well as being terminable behavior.

Yet I was told not to submit papers to fire this individual. Why? He was a member of one of the "protected minorities" and my superior said if we fired him he could mount a civil rights lawsuit - despite the fact that the proposed firing was entirely on the basis of this individual's behavior. Instead I was instructed to submit the file for a bureaucratic review process - effectively placing the individual out of work during the proceedings so he would be forced to get another job.

That's my experience with "discrimination laws" - they generally help to defend a**holes but don't do anything to stop a**hole behavior.

[Scott]

Off-topic, argumentative, baiting posts and some replies have been removed.

Please stay on topic and cease with the nitpicking arguments. The reason there is a topic and a thread and that is is in the news is because there is discrimination.

[Scott]

It's unbelievable that in today's day and age, a modern "free country" has to put it to the vote whether or not to have discrimination against certain humans.

Yes I read it and my eyes were popping out of my head.

We've had this in the UK for as long as I can remember and there was no vote on it....its just basic humanity.

Funny even in Thailand with fewer laws protecting minorities there is less discrimination in many areas than you will find in bible thumping America.

The comparison doesn't quite hold water. Gays in Thailand are subjected to discrimination. That usually occurs at the time of hiring....or in a lot of cases not getting hired. I am personally aware of a school where the new director decided to have all gay teachers dismissed, which is exactly what happened and the administrative staff were told not to hire any more gays. When asked how they could tell for sure, she simply said if they look gay, dress gay or sound gay, don't hire them. If you are not sure, then don't hire them.

[cdnvic]

Discuss the topic and stop taking shots at each other please.

[Jingthing]

Sadly, it appears the HERO ordinance in Houston has been repealed.

The fear tactics about bathrooms worked.

Egads. The struggles continue, basically forever.

Houston Votes to Go Backward on Equal Rights Ordinance

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/11/03/houston-repeals-lgbt-inclusive-hero

[sgtsabai]

Another black eye for Texass. Houston, while a bit more liberal than much of Texass, is no "island in a sea of rednecks" like Austin. Very sad indeed and another reason to be ashamed of my home state. If anything, after Ann Richards the state has gone backwards, quickly and to the detriment of all residents.