skwatra Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Based on the wide margin of defeat for HERO, I can only assume that a large percentage of people who this ordinance was designed to protect voted against it. One thing that perplexes me, why is this not all covered under the 14th amendment? Why do individual cities and states need to have these laws on the books? Equal protection under the law for everyone. No exceptions. The ordinance was intended to protect everyone. But to address what I think you're getting at - the people who are not clearly protected now (not to argue over if they are protected to make this point - many would disagree on this), the LGBT community - if they all came out and voted Yes, they are still an overwhelming small majority of the total population. So i don't believe your assumption is correct. The 14th amendment is broad, and was written after the Civil War. There have been many Supreme Court cases that effectively have added on to the Amendment over the years to address more current rights issues. But there are several LGBT rights that are not protected at the Federal Level. Further, having a law at the Municipal level makes it much easier for a regular person to take to court (cost-wise and complexity). Think about gay marriage, some people argued that the 14th amendment allows it, based on "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". But states had the rights to make gay marriage illegal until a Supreme Court decision came down earlier this year stating Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. HERO was more specific than the 14th Amendment, and added clarity on LGBT and Transgender. Words:"It is the policy of the city that all of its residents and persons subject to itsjurisdiction shall not be subject to discrimination based on an individual's sex, race,color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status,religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy. " 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Correct. The LGBT Community is not a protected class under US Law. Meaning that individuals and institutions may discriminate, without penalty. Meaning that an employer or landlord (for example) can ask you whether or not you are gay or straight in an interview and base their decision whether to hire you based on your answer. QTEIn United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination ActCitizenship – Immigration Reform and Control ActFamilial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housingDisability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights ActGenetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination ActUNQTE Rights do not come automatically in this country unless you are part of a majority. You have to fight like hell to get them. And they rarely come, to a minority, when put up to a general vote. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Dogs Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Former US Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX) endorsing King for Houston Mayor in the runoff: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Bill-King-gets-major-surprising-endorsement-6637953.php Edited November 17, 2015 by Blue Dogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Correct. The LGBT Community is not a protected class under US Law. Meaning that individuals and institutions may discriminate, without penalty. Meaning that an employer or landlord (for example) can ask you whether or not you are gay or straight in an interview and base their decision whether to hire you based on your answer. QTEIn United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination ActCitizenship – Immigration Reform and Control ActFamilial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housingDisability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights ActGenetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination ActUNQTE Rights do not come automatically in this country unless you are part of a majority. You have to fight like hell to get them. And they rarely come, to a minority, when put up to a general vote. Reading the snippet about the protected classes in the thread above, it looks to me like all the classes are already protected except marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Were all the rest just thrown in there in a lame attempt to get those three passed? Maybe instead of doing this piecemeal, city by city, some national figures should put their money where their mouths are and do it in Federal law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 One of the goals if HERO was to provide for the ability to bring an action in a local court rather than in Federal court. That's one reason all protected classes were included. Federal court cases are far more expensive to initiate, and may not be viable for poor plaintiffs. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 August. That is what Makes it an "Equal Right Ordinance" and not "Special Rights Ordinance". And Yes...This absolutely should be done on a Federal Level. But, do you see our current Congressional leaders even discussing such a thing? Don't think so. In fact anything, anywhere that extends GLBT persons any sort of protection or equality will instantly be struck down by Republican committee leadership. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 August. That is what Makes it an "Equal Right Ordinance" and not "Special Rights Ordinance". And Yes...This absolutely should be done on a Federal Level. But, do you see our current Congressional leaders even discussing such a thing? Don't think so. In fact anything, anywhere that extends GLBT persons any sort of protection or equality will instantly be struck down by Republican committee leadership. There was a time not so long ago when the Presidency and both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Did they bring it up then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 (edited) There was a time not so long ago when the Presidency and both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Did they bring it up then?Why does this matter? Are you saying Republicans don't care for equal rights? I would agree with you for the most part. It is unfortunate it wasn't brought up then and we instead had a president who tried working with the other side and it just bit him in the ass. Edited November 19, 2015 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Why does this matter? Are you saying Republicans don't care for equal rights? I would agree with you for the most part. It is unfortunate it wasn't brought up then and we instead had a president who tried working with the other side and it just bit him in the ass. Just trying to find out if this was an issue that the Democratic President and the Democratic Congress cared much about when they had the power to do something about it. At a time when it couldn't have been struck down by Republican commitee leadership. Did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The filibuster proof D majority in the Senate lasted for all of seven months, much of which was consumed by the summer break. Even then, it was pretty fragile because Teddy Kennedy was in such poor health and thus couldn't vote very often. Even big priority things, like health care, didn't necessarily get through. Once Kennedy died and was replaced by an appointed R, giving Mitch McConnell the leverage to follow through on his vow to obstruct everything Obama proposed, that was all she wrote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 August. Yes the Dems did. Multiple times on multiple glbt issues. A quick search turned up this article regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act in 2013. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-cloture-vote-enda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 August. Yes the Dems did. Multiple times on multiple glbt issues.A quick search turned up this article regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act in 2013.http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-cloture-vote-enda Ok, but did they bring it up when they had the power in both houses of Congress (i.e. when they could pass it despite any Republican opposition)? Or was it not really a priority for Congress or the President? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Ok, but did they bring it up when they had the power in both houses of Congress (i.e. when they could pass it despite any Republican opposition)? Or was it not really a priority for Congress or the President? It wasn't a priority. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 The rights of Minorities are rarely ever a political priority. That's why you've got a fight like hell for equality and that is why they are always so late in coming. But it is clear what party supports them and which does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 The rights of Minorities are rarely ever a political priority. That's why you've got a fight like hell for equality and that is why they are always so late in coming. But it is clear what party supports them and which does not. I think it's clear that neither party really supports them. It's just that one bloviates about doing something about it more than the other. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Even if what you are saying is true that neither party supports a community like LGBTs, why wouldn't I at least want to vote for the one that says it does and not for the one that has leaders attending conferences in which the main speaker thinks LGBTs should be stoned to death? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) Even if what you are saying is true that neither party supports a community like LGBTs, why wouldn't I at least want to vote for the one that says it does and not for the one that has leaders attending conferences in which the main speaker thinks LGBTs should be stoned to death?Added notes: The GOP "leaders" were Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Piyush Jindal. The "Christian" terrorist is Kevin Swanson. Edited November 20, 2015 by west20th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Added notes: The GOP "leaders" were Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Piyush Jindal. The "Christian" terrorist is Kevin Swanson. Anyone who hates Girl Scout cookies should certainly be put on the Watch List! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Dogs Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 Houston Chronicle's fresh article on the hotly contested campaign for Houston Mayor, in particularly partisan terms: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/Mayor-s-race-looking-anything-but-nonpartisan-6649425.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Google link to get to full article:https://www.google.com/search?q=Mayor%27s+race+looking+anything+but+nonpartisan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Keeping partisan politics out of this, who do HAIFers feel will be better for Houston, in dealing with municipal issues and keeping things going in the right direction? Honestly from the little I followed in the original race, Turner rubbed me the wrong way. I know nothing of his long history and generally don't follow politics except for major social issues. King came off as fake in the debate clips i saw. I wasn't really impressed by anyone but Bell was my choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 King's campaign annoys me because his yard signs are freaking everywhere. In medians. In parks. In strip center lots. Yet, rarely, do I see them in front of people's homes. I thought that crap was illegal? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Correct. The LGBT Community is not a protected class under US Law. Meaning that individuals and institutions may discriminate, without penalty. Meaning that an employer or landlord (for example) can ask you whether or not you are gay or straight in an interview and base their decision whether to hire you based on your answer. QTEIn United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination ActCitizenship – Immigration Reform and Control ActFamilial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housingDisability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights ActGenetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination ActUNQTE Rights do not come automatically in this country unless you are part of a majority. You have to fight like hell to get them. And they rarely come, to a minority, when put up to a general vote. All kinds of finer points, too. Sex is protected in employment law, but not in public accommodations law... businesses can discriminate on the basis of sex, if they wish. I know some hair salons charge women more, regardless of hair length, and then there's bars that charge men a cover but not women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astros148 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Spoke with turners campaign manager yesterday at a gathrring and was very impressed by their vision of future of commuter rail and rail in general. Turner understands this issue and his manager told me they definitely do plan on tacklimg this issue and plan to see what options they may have to expand light rail.Very very optimistic right now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Dogs Posted December 2, 2015 Author Share Posted December 2, 2015 Spoke with turners campaign manager yesterday at a gathrring and was very impressed by their vision of future of commuter rail and rail in general. Turner understands this issue and his manager told me they definitely do plan on tacklimg this issue and plan to see what options they may have to expand light rail.Very very optimistic right nowMattress Mack endorsing King [R] for Houston Mayor! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2YPFDobPgA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Dogs Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Last night's runoff debate on Ch. 13 got PERSONAL: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Turner-King-butt-heads-on-fiscal-policy-6671861.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 August. That is what Makes it an "Equal Right Ordinance" and not "Special Rights Ordinance". And Yes...This absolutely should be done on a Federal Level. But, do you see our current Congressional leaders even discussing such a thing? Don't think so. In fact anything, anywhere that extends GLBT persons any sort of protection or equality will instantly be struck down by Republican committee leadership. Unlike when the Democrats had full control of the congress and the presidency just a few short years ago. Remember those days when the Democratic leadership put equal rights for GLBT up for a vote and of course, it passed, and the President signed it. Remember that? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Spoke with turners campaign manager yesterday at a gathrring and was very impressed by their vision of future of commuter rail and rail in general. Turner understands this issue and his manager told me they definitely do plan on tacklimg this issue and plan to see what options they may have to expand light rail.Very very optimistic right now What is their vision of commuter rail and rail in general? Here is what his website says on the issue of public transportation (I don't see much in the way of vision of commuter rail or rail in general in here): "Sylvester applauds METRO’s recent steps forward on its long-term bus rapid transit (BRT) proposal. He is also in favor of the commuter line between Missouri City and Houston, the 90A line, which has the strong support of the communities in that region. However, it is crucial that any citywide transportation proposal includes usable transportation for every community, not only point-to-point transportation for commuters.Houston’s young population expects an urban, walkable, technologically up-to-date city; we should keep this population in mind as we plan improvements to our transportation infrastructure. For example, the ease of use of our bus system could be improved by making real-time bus arrival information available to the public through their phones and computers. Sylvester supports a planned approach to transit that includes buses, rail, bikes and pedestrian options, to provide effective and affordable options to all areas of the city." Edited December 3, 2015 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Unlike when the Democrats had full control of the congress and the presidency just a few short years ago. Remember those days when the Democratic leadership put equal rights for GLBT up for a vote and of course, it passed, and the President signed it. Remember that? ;-) They only had enough time for one big thing, and that thing ended up being Obamacare. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 They only had enough time for one big thing, and that thing ended up being Obamacare. ROFLMAO. Excuses, excuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.