Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance Discussion/Results

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's not though, because it's happening now

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Who is being denied access to public accomodations ?

Can you show me where the State has confiscated property from a citizen due to their sexual orientation ?

We've already seen the legal precedence in multiple states, where private services are punished for the action, therefor making it illegal in application.

I've already shown there is federal protection in reference to employment, both public & private. Same with housing, when provided by a State or Federal agency. So that's not entirely true....


So I have to ask, where is the harm in the failure of this bill ?

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


No Sexual Orientation or Gender-Identity ?

am i missing something?

Yes, you're missing the post above yours that answers your question.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and several courts have interpreted Title VII to protect transgender employees, and the EEOC has interpreted Title VII to cover sexual orientation discrimination. The Supreme Court has held that the EEOC's interpretations of Title VII are entitled to "great deference."

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Go with a Trans Woman to Houston and let her use her Correct Restroom (Womans) and Lets see.. or have someone Deny a Gay Or Lesbian something and tell me that.

Maybe it sounds like these Laws don't need to be passed, but they do

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Go with a Trans Woman to Houston and let her use her Correct Restroom (Womans) and Lets see.. or have someone Deny a Gay Or Lesbian something and tell me that.

Restrictions on use, are not the same as being denied use. For example, look at any of the protected rights any citizen has, and you'll see restrictions. Again, restrictions & denials are two separate beasts.

Maybe it sounds like these Laws don't need to be passed, but they do

I think, like anything else there is the prudence of "case by case." As illustrated, this particular law in the single city of Houston, is superfluous. These particular protections are already in place. Do I support them ? Absolutely I do. I do however take an unfavorable stance to needless legislation, or stacking law ontop of law when both address the same issues.

This was "feel good" legislation, and the fallout of the citizens to not pass it is simply political mud-raking. There are real issues for the community, but the passing of this law is not one of them.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Again, it's easy to say on the Outside, but until you are part of it, getting Denied or fired by these States where we don't have protection is a different Story

Restricting a Trans Woman from using her correct Restroom is the same as denying her to use it, she can't. Restricting a Gay Person from Housing is the same as Denying them..

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Again, it's easy to say on the Outside, but until you are part of it, getting Denied or fired by these States where we don't have protection is a different Story

Restricting a Trans Woman from using her correct Restroom is the same as denying her to use it, she can't. Restricting a Gay Person from Housing is the same as Denying them..

You're going in circles to things we've already covered, and shown protection for.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

www.vox.com...

www.bna.com...

“This historic ruling by the EEOC makes clear they agree workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, much like gender identity, is illegal,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign in Washington. “While an important step, it also highlights the need for a comprehensive federal law permanently and clearly banning LGBT discrimination beyond employment to all areas of American life.”

The EEOC administrative decisions don't cover private sector employment, but they indicate the agency's interpretation of Title VII and can have persuasive effect when courts consider private sector claims.

www.hq-law.com...

Though the EEOC’s ruling is persuasive, courts are not bound to follow the EEOC’s determination, and some courts have already ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited by Title VII. Recently, a bill entitled the Equality Act has been introduced to Congress that would prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in credit, education, employment, federal funding, housing, jury service, and public accommodations. Unless a law like the Equality Act passes, LGBT people may be left with only state remedies or, in many states, no protection at all against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

The weight of the EEOC's interpretation & enforcement of statute, and the weight of the U.S. Supreme Court to defer to their interpretation & enforcement superceeds the need for a state law. This also shows the argument that they have no protections to be false, at best.

The EEOC administrative decisions don't cover private sector employment, but they indicate the agency's interpretation of Title VII and can have persuasive effect when courts consider private sector claims.

The EEOC most certainly DOES cover private sector employment. Any employer of 15 or more does indeed fall under EEOC jurisdiction.

" the business is covered by the laws we enforce if it has 15 or more employees"

www.eeoc.gov...

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

www.slate.com...

Until the Supreme Court weighs in, lower courts may choose to accept or reject the EEOC's reading of Title VII. But the commission's rulings are respected by the judiciary, and could tip more courts to rule that sexual orientation discrimination is, indeed, already forbidden in the United States.

Your just talking about the Workplace though, this would only cover employment and not other things, Public Accommodations, Services, Housing Property etc?

As far as I know, the EEOC only applies to Federal/Government employment.

Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity. www.eeoc.gov...

Activist have been working to get it added to the Civil Rights Act for all citizens.

EXCEPT: laws that apply in general. You can't fire a gay person for something you can't fire a straight person for.

But, you can refuse to hire a gay person because they are gay.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I've posted it far too many times, but in 30+ states it is Legal to Fire someone, deny them a Job, services, housing, property among other things just for being GLBTQ+

that is discrimination, that is not being treated Equal, and that is not Equal protections

It is not legal. They are not a protected class (something I find ludicrous, by the way.)

When has someone been fired for *just* the reason of being GTSRBFDBBQ, especially in the highly litigous society we live in? I live in one of these states you refer to, and I get regular HR sessions about what is and is not considered harassment and justifiable complaints.

Remember, my questions is about where they were fired for just being gay. Not breech of contract, just in case you want to bring up some Christian/Catholic school teacher that hid their gay union despite the contract agreements to live Christian lives. Solely, only, specifically because their boss thought they had gay cooties and was not a valid worker.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Teikiatsu

How about Males that are born with two X Chromosomes, who still have a "Mans Body", are they still "Male" if a "Female" is XX Chromosome ?

How about Intersex people, how would you "Define" them. we exist outside of a Binary system, it's not "Black and White" a Trans Woman is a Woman, their Body Part doesn't define them, and same with a Trans Man

are you Upset that a Woman could pretend to be a trans Man and go into a Males Restroom and Abuse a Little Boy?

My original post was "no penis in the girl's room." That's pretty definitive and doesn't care how the penis wielder feels about their identity or what their DNA combination is.

I don't want a woman stripping in a boy's bathroom either.

It's pretty basic. I don't care what they think they are. It's biology. It's expressed genitalia. Pretty cut and dry.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Society should not be expected to stop everything and let some special snowflakes get preferential treatment based on how they feel inside, in direct opposition of what unbiased biology makes blatantly obvious.

I'd like to quote you the next time you're complaining about Christians being mistreated ... right?

Because Christians (aka "Holy Special Snowflakes") who feel like they're being mistreated have to be catered to, right?

Your hypocrisy is utterly disgusting.

Christianity have something to do with biology?

And when have I said Christians must be catered to?

Your tunnel vision / cherry picking / bias is telling.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Intersex

Update your boundless wisdom a bit.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Annee

Yet, many states are trying to pass laws that allow Discrimination, Florida being the latest

That allow religious expression. A founding principle of this nation, last I checked.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Intersex

Update your boundless wisdom a bit.

*sigh*

No penis in the girl's room. Pretty definitive, and it doesn't care what the penis wielder thinks they are.

Should I rinse/repeat? Or are you going to bring up a fraction of a fraction of society to force the majority of society to feel guilty about itself? Oh wait, that's all you do. Outliers are not normal pressing issues for the majority. We should not segregate them, however we should not bend over backwards for them either.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Annee

Yet, many states are trying to pass laws that allow Discrimination, Florida being the latest

That allow religious expression. A founding principle of this nation, last I checked.

Your rights end where mine begin.

I don't live 200+ years ago.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't want anyone to feel guilty.

I just want everyone to be treated equally.

originally posted by: Annee
As far as I know, the EEOC only applies to Federal/Government employment.

I've shown multiple times, that's not true. Heck, when you get to work today look around I bet you see an EEOC poster hanging on a tackboard somewhere.

Anyways, the bottom line here is that Houston (that's just 1 city) not passing a "feel good" bill does not mean the sky is falling. The community isn't being run out of town, houses burning and children crying etc..


Darth Prime - To answer your question, if you look you'll see every Fed Agency including say HUD; Has similar interpretations as the EEOC to this matter. Which then leans back into State Supremes & the U.S. Supreme court enforcing those interpretations if required. Also Most State Agencies follow their perspective Federal Counter-parts for the most part in these matters. Like I said before there are some real issues facing the community, but this bill passing or not is not one of those issues.