- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NCAA says prop 1 effects Houston as a hosting site
Posted on 11/5/15 at 6:44 am to Dire Wolf
Posted on 11/5/15 at 6:44 am to Dire Wolf
The "Fighting Illini" are A-OK but the "Fighting Sioux" just HAD to go immediately because the "Fighting Illini" have a lot more influence.
Like typical liberals the assclowns at the NCAA are gutless cowards who have no regard for consistency.
Now they want to preach about this bullshite ordinance.
Well frick them.
Like typical liberals the assclowns at the NCAA are gutless cowards who have no regard for consistency.
Now they want to preach about this bullshite ordinance.
Well frick them.
0
Posted on 11/5/15 at 11:11 am to MSH
quote:
No. The premise was that a man could go into women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc. simply by identifying a female at that time.
Again that provision of it was taken out months ago.
It would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—criteria not covered by federal anti-discrimination laws—especially "in city employment, city services, city contracting practices, housing, public accommodations, and private employment."
The ordinance would have also made prohibitions against discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, genetic information and pregnancy explicit in the city's code. Discrimination based on these characteristics was already prohibited by federal law. It was designed to exempt religious institutions and organizations from compliance.
The law would have made it a Class C misdemeanor to violate the ordinance and would have dictated a fine of between $250 and $500 for each violation. The ordinance was designed to count each day or part-day that "a violation is committed, continued, or permitted" as a separate violation. It set a cap of $5,000 on the total amount of fines that could be imposed for the same complaint and victim.
There was no restroom portion of the proposition.
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 11:14 am
Posted on 11/5/15 at 11:12 am to MSH
quote:
No. The premise was that a man could go into women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc. simply by identifying a female at that time.
That's what the 14 year old preteen on the radio told you
Posted on 11/5/15 at 11:43 am to Atari
quote:
There was no restroom portion of the proposition
The restroom provision was removed, but the issue remained very much alive because the transgender person denied access to a bathroom could still file a complaint for discrimination with the city's inspector general.
quote:LINK
The proposed amendment would remove that paragraph of the expansive ordinance. Transgender people barred access to a restroom still would be able to file a discrimination complaint to the city's Office of Inspector General under the process outlined for all protected characteristics, such as race and veteran status.
So the bathroom issue was very much alive, despite the removal of the specific language.
Posted on 11/5/15 at 11:57 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
That's what the 14 year old preteen on the radio told you
In order to demonstrate a logical extreme that is still possible under the proposed ordnance, an exercise that is helpful in considering any possible consequences of the law.
This past week, the DOE ordered a public school to let a boy use a girl's bathroom, but frick those crazy religious right zealots for calling this law into question.
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:06 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
In order to demonstrate a logical extreme that is still possible under the proposed ordnance, an exercise that is helpful in considering any possible consequences of the law.
So this would have made rape okay? That is what the tv ad was suggesting as the consequence.
LINK
Come on. It was blatant misrepresentation and fear mongering.
I'm not even saying I'm for it, just that the ad campaign was pathetix, dishonest, yet effective
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:12 pm to Atari
quote:
The "restroom provision" in Prop 1 was taken out of it months ago.
No, it wasn't. The language was just changed to say "facilities", which still includes restrooms, so that people like you would think that it was taken out.
The proposition was just smoke and mirrors to get people to rally around the LGBT movement to protect a class that is already protected federally, all so the Mayor could give too much power to City Hall.
It was a poorly written power hungry proposal.
The NCAA can frick off with trying to act all high and mighty on something that them and the whole nation that want to criticize it only know half of the story.
After all the paranoid power hungry mayor ordered subpoenas on all churches to handover transcripts of their sermons over all this. It's government over reach at its finest.
I know TL;DR take it to the poli-board. I'll shut up now.
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:12 pm to TigerBait1127
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/10/23 at 3:09 am
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:12 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
So this would have made rape okay?
No, what exactly are you confused about?
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:20 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
No, what exactly are you confused about?
The ads implied that little girls would be raped
What exactly are you confused about?
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:22 pm to Atari
quote:
It was designed to exempt religious institutions and organizations from compliance.
Hardly. That would be the case anyway under the First Amendment. The ordinance was designed in large part to force businesses to comply with the mayor's agenda regardless of the business owner's religious beliefs.
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:27 pm to tigerinridgeland
quote:
The ordinance was designed in large part to force businesses to comply with the mayor's agenda regardless of the business owner's religious beliefs.
Which should have been the discussion instead
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:28 pm to TigerBait1127
No it didn't. It said sex offenders could potentially walk into a girls' bathroom. Is that factually incorrect?
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:31 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
it didn't. It said sex offenders could potentially walk into a girls' bathroom. Is that factually incorrect?
What?
He walked into the same stall as the girl and then the door closed. So no, it was not factually correct as that still wouldn't be allowed.
He can do the same thing either way. It was classic fear mongering without an statistical basis for that fear.
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:34 pm to TigerBait1127
Despite the ads, that is what most people probably understood anyway. But the fact remains that anyone could walk into the bathroom of the opposite sex and no one would act because of fear of a suit or complaint being filed. And just as there were deliberate attempts to get Christian businesses to violate discrimination ordinances in other cities and expose them to outrageous and confiscatory fines and damages, you can be sure there would have been similar efforts in Houston.
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:37 pm to TigerBait1127
Correct, they showed a man following a girl into a stall, which I would argue there is an increased possibility of happening if businesses are not allowed to deny men from entering women's bathrooms. This is not the same as implying that rape would now be okay.
Statistics are pretty irrelevant for anti-discrimnation laws, anyway.
Statistics are pretty irrelevant for anti-discrimnation laws, anyway.
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:41 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
This is not the same as implying that rape would now be okay.
You didn't watch the entire video the first time, did you?
I said:
quote:
The ads implied that little girls would be raped
And you said:
quote:
No it didn't
That is exactly what they are implying
quote:
This is not the same as implying that rape would now be okay.
So it was implying rape?
Gotcha
quote:
Statistics are pretty irrelevant for anti-discrimnation laws, anyway.
There are similar laws in a lot of major metros. The stats are there and pretty relevant to this stupid part of the discussion
There was reason to oppose this, but the ad was a joke. You should be able to admit that
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 11/5/15 at 12:56 pm to TigerBait1127
I've seen the commercial a half dozen or so times because I live in Houston. I'm pretty sure it came on during some September Stros games. You said the law would make it okay for girls to be raped. It showed a girl in a situation like that. Given the initial context you provided, that's how I interpreted what you were saying.
Doesn't really matter, since empirical analysis isn't very useful here.
Meh, it's impossible to separate emotion from a law like this, from both sides.
quote:
The stats are there
Doesn't really matter, since empirical analysis isn't very useful here.
quote:
the ad was a joke.
Meh, it's impossible to separate emotion from a law like this, from both sides.
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 11/5/15 at 1:02 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
You said the law would make it okay for girls to be raped
No I didn't
I said this:
quote:
So this would have made rape okay? That is what the tv ad was suggesting as the consequence.
You have to be trolling
Posted on 11/5/15 at 1:05 pm to TigerBait1127
Sorry I misspoke. I meant to say "you said that the ad is contending that the law would make rape okay."
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News