Jump to content

2015 Houston Mayor's race

Blue Dogs

By Blue Dogs
in City Hall

Recommended Posts

skwatra

skwatra

Posted
Posted

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 its

jurisdiction 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. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Naviguessor

Naviguessor

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

QTE

UNQTE

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
august948

august948

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

QTE

UNQTE

 

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ross

Ross

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naviguessor

Naviguessor

Posted
Posted

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
august948

august948

Posted
Posted

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trae

Trae

Posted
Posted

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
august948

august948

Posted
Posted

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mollusk

mollusk

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
august948

august948

Posted
Posted

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ross

Ross

Posted
Posted

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
august948

august948

Posted
Posted

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KinkaidAlum

KinkaidAlum

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
west20th

west20th

Posted
Posted

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skwatra

skwatra

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kylejack

kylejack

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

QTE

UNQTE

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
astros148

astros148

Posted
Posted

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blue Dogs

Blue Dogs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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

Mattress Mack endorsing King [R] for Houston Mayor!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2YPFDobPgA

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston19514

Houston19514

Posted
Posted

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?  ;-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Houston19514

Houston19514

Posted
Posted

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kylejack

kylejack

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...