(06-12-2018 10:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 06:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typo - post #115.
And sorry you think it’s a deflection, I certainly felt like it was an honest attempt to explain whose rights “won” in that situation and why. Not sure why you think it’s a deflection...
And again, I do NOT think there has to be specific language in order for HERO to be applied to bathrooms. Please do not put words into my mouth when I have explicitly addressed the issue again, and again. Seriously, what the hell? How many times do I have to respond to this? Talk about having your mind made up...
Just like your post #115, I mistakenly thought there was specific language based on all of the opposition. You now have the hindsight to be able to make an argument about the sufficiently broad use of language causing the problem that resulted in the opposition, but even you thought there was a specific provision that was related to transgender bathroom use.

But there is specific language. The definition of public accommodation as written would include restrooms, and could have been reworded to exclude public restrooms. Or public restrooms could have been listed in the defenses. Or the whole public accommodations section could have been excluded or rewritten to be clear about the exclusion. You don't have to say the word bathroom if you write the ordinance to be sufficiently vague to include them. And that is exactly what was done here. And I don't think it was done in good faith either. The authors knew exactly what they were doing and that was their intent. They were trying to backdoor something that they knew they could not get in the front door.

I understand your revisionist take, and it has merit. That the text was too vague, but that was not where this argument started, at all. And so to suggest that when you said:

Quote: What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.

or

Quote:Again, I don't know why this had to be appended to a statute whose main purpose was to guarantee equal rights in employment and other situations. I am fully supportive of rights in those other situations. I think these provisions were unnecessary and inappropriate overreach, quite likely for the express intended purpose of provoking precisely the storm that they did provoke.

or

Quote: But why does that wording have to be in a bill dealing with things like employment rights? I see no problem with an employment rights bill that did not include that provision.
I think the bathroom provision was inserted to provoke a reaction. I can see no other reason tout it in.

that you were really talking about the vagueness of the bill, doesn't make sense. Or that the word "public accommodations" is specific language about the bathroom, doesn't make sense. Or that you actually thought there should have been a specific provision that exempted bathrooms, doesn't make sense. Those quotes from you sure sound like you, like many others, thought there was a specific provision that called out bathrooms as being a specifically protected place, and that this supposed provision was the problem.

I never said there was any wording that called out bathrooms as a specifically protected place, and I'm really not sure where you got that idea. The quoted passages don't say that.

I guess this is the difference between being an attorney and reading it like an attorney, compared to not. The bathrooms provision is that the public accommodations term was defined in a way to include bathrooms, and no exception was made for bathrooms. That could have been fixed easily enough, but it wasn't. They could have defined public accommodations differently to exclude bathrooms, or they could have listed bathrooms as one of the specific exceptions, or they could have omitted the public accommodations section altogether (there are federal statutes) and written an employment and housing bill. I'd have been fine with any of those, and I expect such a bill would have passed. But that's obviously not what the sponsors wanted.

Quote:Looking at HERO, this is the definition they provided for public accommodation:

Quote: ...discrimination on the basis of Protected
Characteristics in privately owned and operated public accommodations, including
restaurants, bars, entertainment venues and places of public amusement, hotels and
motels and public conveyances ("Public Accommodations")...

So, as you stated above, as Tanq pointed out, and as I agreed with, the language would cover bathrooms (by proxy I guess, as they're parts of the listed areas?). But I would never state that this was a "bathroom provision" after having read the language. I would also not call HERO a bathroom bill after having read through portions of it, yet that is what we were calling it repeatedly.

It was not a bathroom bill exclusively. It had many good features. But since you agree that the language as written includes bathrooms, then why try to argue as if it doesn't? I did not like the fact that it got described as a bathroom bill, when as you point out it had many other good provisions. And there was a simple solution: Exclude bathrooms from the definition of public accommodations. But that did not happen.

Had I been on city council, I would have introduced a revised version, with the public accommodation language cleaned up or omitted, immediately after the referendum failed. And I predict that it would have passed swimmingly.

I'm not arguing that HERO does not include bathrooms, due to its sweeping language.

But I'll drop it - you were always fully informed of what HERO said, you just communicated that VERY poorly by stating things like how you thought the "bathroom provision" was specifically inserted to cause a reaction. Not sure why you didn't call that the public accommodation provision...

(06-12-2018 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 10:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 06:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typo - post #115.
And sorry you think it’s a deflection, I certainly felt like it was an honest attempt to explain whose rights “won” in that situation and why. Not sure why you think it’s a deflection...
And again, I do NOT think there has to be specific language in order for HERO to be applied to bathrooms. Please do not put words into my mouth when I have explicitly addressed the issue again, and again. Seriously, what the hell? How many times do I have to respond to this? Talk about having your mind made up...
Just like your post #115, I mistakenly thought there was specific language based on all of the opposition. You now have the hindsight to be able to make an argument about the sufficiently broad use of language causing the problem that resulted in the opposition, but even you thought there was a specific provision that was related to transgender bathroom use.

But there is specific language. The definition of public accommodation as written would include restrooms, and could have been reworded to exclude public restrooms. Or public restrooms could have been listed in the defenses. Or the whole public accommodations section could have been excluded or rewritten to be clear about the exclusion. You don't have to say the word bathroom if you write the ordinance to be sufficiently vague to include them. And that is exactly what was done here. And I don't think it was done in good faith either. The authors knew exactly what they were doing and that was their intent. They were trying to backdoor something that they knew they could not get in the front door.

I understand your revisionist take, and it has merit. That the text was too vague, but that was not where this argument started, at all. And so to suggest that when you said:

Quote: What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.

or

Quote:Again, I don't know why this had to be appended to a statute whose main purpose was to guarantee equal rights in employment and other situations. I am fully supportive of rights in those other situations. I think these provisions were unnecessary and inappropriate overreach, quite likely for the express intended purpose of provoking precisely the storm that they did provoke.

or

Quote: But why does that wording have to be in a bill dealing with things like employment rights? I see no problem with an employment rights bill that did not include that provision.
I think the bathroom provision was inserted to provoke a reaction. I can see no other reason tout it in.

that you were really talking about the vagueness of the bill, doesn't make sense. Or that the word "public accommodations" is specific language about the bathroom, doesn't make sense. Or that you actually thought there should have been a specific provision that exempted bathrooms, doesn't make sense. Those quotes from you sure sound like you, like many others, thought there was a specific provision that called out bathrooms as being a specifically protected place, and that this supposed provision was the problem.

I never said there was any wording that called out bathrooms as a specifically protected place, and I'm really not sure where you got that idea. The quoted passages don't say that.

I guess this is the difference between being an attorney and reading it like an attorney, compared to not. The bathrooms provision is that the public accommodations term was defined in a way to include bathrooms, and no exception was made for bathrooms. That could have been fixed easily enough, but it wasn't. They could have defined public accommodations differently to exclude bathrooms, or they could have listed bathrooms as one of the specific exceptions, or they could have omitted the public accommodations section altogether (there are federal statutes) and written an employment and housing bill. I'd have been fine with any of those, and I expect such a bill would have passed. But that's obviously not what the sponsors wanted.

Quote:Looking at HERO, this is the definition they provided for public accommodation:

Quote: ...discrimination on the basis of Protected
Characteristics in privately owned and operated public accommodations, including
restaurants, bars, entertainment venues and places of public amusement, hotels and
motels and public conveyances ("Public Accommodations")...

So, as you stated above, as Tanq pointed out, and as I agreed with, the language would cover bathrooms (by proxy I guess, as they're parts of the listed areas?). But I would never state that this was a "bathroom provision" after having read the language. I would also not call HERO a bathroom bill after having read through portions of it, yet that is what we were calling it repeatedly.

It was not a bathroom bill exclusively. It had many good features. But since you agree that the language as written includes bathrooms, then why try to argue as if it doesn't? I did not like the fact that it got described as a bathroom bill, when as you point out it had many other good provisions. And there was a simple solution: Exclude bathrooms from the definition of public accommodations. But that did not happen.
Had I been on city council, I would have introduced a revised version, with the public accommodation language cleaned up or omitted, immediately after the referendum failed. And I predict that it would have passed swimmingly.

I'm not arguing that HERO does not include bathrooms, due to its sweeping language.
But I'll drop it - you were always fully informed of what HERO said, you just communicated that VERY poorly by stating things like how you thought the "bathroom provision" was specifically inserted to cause a reaction. Not sure why you didn't call that the public accommodation provision...

Probably because everyone else called it the bathroom provision.

And what made it a bathroom provision was that the public accommodation provision was worded in such a manner that it would include bathrooms. And yes I think that whoever drafted it did that on purpose to produce that result. And yes there were several different specific changes that could have been made to the public accommodation wording that would have avoided the problem. I have suggested several possible modifications. And yes, with the bathroom language fixed, I would have supported the bill.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my comments. Since I'd gone through them at great length several times before, I figured everybody on here understood where I was coming from. Sorry you didn't.

(06-12-2018 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 10:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 06:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Typo - post #115.
And sorry you think it’s a deflection, I certainly felt like it was an honest attempt to explain whose rights “won” in that situation and why. Not sure why you think it’s a deflection...
And again, I do NOT think there has to be specific language in order for HERO to be applied to bathrooms. Please do not put words into my mouth when I have explicitly addressed the issue again, and again. Seriously, what the hell? How many times do I have to respond to this? Talk about having your mind made up...
Just like your post #115, I mistakenly thought there was specific language based on all of the opposition. You now have the hindsight to be able to make an argument about the sufficiently broad use of language causing the problem that resulted in the opposition, but even you thought there was a specific provision that was related to transgender bathroom use.

But there is specific language. The definition of public accommodation as written would include restrooms, and could have been reworded to exclude public restrooms. Or public restrooms could have been listed in the defenses. Or the whole public accommodations section could have been excluded or rewritten to be clear about the exclusion. You don't have to say the word bathroom if you write the ordinance to be sufficiently vague to include them. And that is exactly what was done here. And I don't think it was done in good faith either. The authors knew exactly what they were doing and that was their intent. They were trying to backdoor something that they knew they could not get in the front door.

I understand your revisionist take, and it has merit. That the text was too vague, but that was not where this argument started, at all. And so to suggest that when you said:

Quote: What I am not understanding is how and why the bathroom provisions relate to those values. As long as someone has an appointed place to poop and pee, I'm not sure what rights are violated.

or

Quote:Again, I don't know why this had to be appended to a statute whose main purpose was to guarantee equal rights in employment and other situations. I am fully supportive of rights in those other situations. I think these provisions were unnecessary and inappropriate overreach, quite likely for the express intended purpose of provoking precisely the storm that they did provoke.

or

Quote: But why does that wording have to be in a bill dealing with things like employment rights? I see no problem with an employment rights bill that did not include that provision.
I think the bathroom provision was inserted to provoke a reaction. I can see no other reason tout it in.

that you were really talking about the vagueness of the bill, doesn't make sense. Or that the word "public accommodations" is specific language about the bathroom, doesn't make sense. Or that you actually thought there should have been a specific provision that exempted bathrooms, doesn't make sense. Those quotes from you sure sound like you, like many others, thought there was a specific provision that called out bathrooms as being a specifically protected place, and that this supposed provision was the problem.

I never said there was any wording that called out bathrooms as a specifically protected place, and I'm really not sure where you got that idea. The quoted passages don't say that.

I guess this is the difference between being an attorney and reading it like an attorney, compared to not. The bathrooms provision is that the public accommodations term was defined in a way to include bathrooms, and no exception was made for bathrooms. That could have been fixed easily enough, but it wasn't. They could have defined public accommodations differently to exclude bathrooms, or they could have listed bathrooms as one of the specific exceptions, or they could have omitted the public accommodations section altogether (there are federal statutes) and written an employment and housing bill. I'd have been fine with any of those, and I expect such a bill would have passed. But that's obviously not what the sponsors wanted.

Quote:Looking at HERO, this is the definition they provided for public accommodation:

Quote: ...discrimination on the basis of Protected
Characteristics in privately owned and operated public accommodations, including
restaurants, bars, entertainment venues and places of public amusement, hotels and
motels and public conveyances ("Public Accommodations")...

So, as you stated above, as Tanq pointed out, and as I agreed with, the language would cover bathrooms (by proxy I guess, as they're parts of the listed areas?). But I would never state that this was a "bathroom provision" after having read the language. I would also not call HERO a bathroom bill after having read through portions of it, yet that is what we were calling it repeatedly.

It was not a bathroom bill exclusively. It had many good features. But since you agree that the language as written includes bathrooms, then why try to argue as if it doesn't? I did not like the fact that it got described as a bathroom bill, when as you point out it had many other good provisions. And there was a simple solution: Exclude bathrooms from the definition of public accommodations. But that did not happen.
Had I been on city council, I would have introduced a revised version, with the public accommodation language cleaned up or omitted, immediately after the referendum failed. And I predict that it would have passed swimmingly.

I'm not arguing that HERO does not include bathrooms, due to its sweeping language.
But I'll drop it - you were always fully informed of what HERO said, you just communicated that VERY poorly by stating things like how you thought the "bathroom provision" was specifically inserted to cause a reaction. Not sure why you didn't call that the public accommodation provision...

Probably because everyone else called it the bathroom provision.

And what made it a bathroom provision was that the public accommodation provision was worded in such a manner that it would include bathrooms. And yes I think that whoever drafted it did that on purpose to produce that result. And yes there were several different specific changes that could have been made to the public accommodation wording that would have avoided the problem. I have suggested several possible modifications. And yes, with the bathroom language fixed, I would have supported the bill.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my comments. Since I'd gone through them at great length several times before, I figured everybody on here understood where I was coming from. Sorry you didn't.

(06-11-2018 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law.

Umm, this is a legal matter, so that's kind of what you have to talk about.

Got it - so no layman’s interpretation or descriptions. Just studious debate.

When your mind is made up beforehand, you obviously do not want to be confused by any facts. By the way, did you ever answer my balancing the equities question. I'll repeat it. Trans persons are uncomfortable being told where they must go to pee and poo. Straight women are uncomfortable with a man in their bathroom. Whose rights trump whose, and why?

Transgender rights, for multiple reasons.

1. You discuss women being uncomfortable with a man in their restroom, but what about an androgynous person? Suppose a rather husky biological woman comes in to use the bathroom, and is falsely reported as being a man? This is especially problematic when most trans -- especially post-op trans -- themselves look androgynous. How can you tell the difference without staring at them for several seconds? How do we balance their rights?

2. What about post-op transgender people? It wouldn't make much sense for someone who has already had surgery to use the bathroom of the gender they were born with. Do they get to use either bathroom? To be fair, you addressed this, but people like Lance and Dan Patrick have given this zero thought.

3. How do we enforce a strict bathroom policy? Do the police deal with this?

4. Is it really that much of an invasion of privacy to use a public bathroom in the first place? Stalls are opaque, after all, and I have never met a woman that would be concerned about washing their hands 3 sinks over from a transgender person. I guess it's all relative; I concede that a young girl might be startled to see a pre-op male in a women's restroom, but the odds of that person being the "hairy dude" that opponents like talking about are FAR less than them being androgynous. Which brings me to my final point:

5. People do not pretend to be trans in order to gain access to women's restrooms. This simply does not happen, ever, and there is 0 evidence to say otherwise. People do stroll in and commit crimes (without bothering with a disguise) but we already have laws for that. Therefore, the scope of our argument relates solely to transgender rights vs. the rights of women and children. Again, to your credit I know you haven't brought this up, but others make the phantom creeps out to be their main argument.

I get where you are coming from. Some pro-LGBT legislation truly do not take into account other people's rights. That's why I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Colorado baker over the angry gay couple, for example. But here, there just isn't nearly enough of a problem to justify banning transgender people from the restrooms that they identify with

I would support turning some restrooms in public places into gender-neutral facilities if people really feel that concerned about privacy. By doing that, the "privacy" side would show empathy towards trans people without giving up their position. Because the right has not proposed such a thing -- in conjunction with comments like Lance referring to trans as "troubled men"" -- I find it hard to believe people like Lance are supporting a bathroom law for the public good. Until I hear a more convincing argument that transgenders are a safety or privacy threat, or until opponents show empathy for transgender people and try to find alternative solutions, I will take the side of the transgenders here.

(06-13-2018 05:35 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law.

Umm, this is a legal matter, so that's kind of what you have to talk about.

Got it - so no layman’s interpretation or descriptions. Just studious debate.

When your mind is made up beforehand, you obviously do not want to be confused by any facts. By the way, did you ever answer my balancing the equities question. I'll repeat it. Trans persons are uncomfortable being told where they must go to pee and poo. Straight women are uncomfortable with a man in their bathroom. Whose rights trump whose, and why?

Transgender rights, for multiple reasons.

1. You discuss women being uncomfortable with a man in their restroom, but what about an androgynous person? Suppose a rather husky biological woman comes in to use the bathroom, and is falsely reported as being a man? This is especially problematic when most trans -- especially post-op trans -- themselves look androgynous. How can you tell the difference without staring at them for several seconds? How do we balance their rights?

2. What about post-op transgender people? It wouldn't make much sense for someone who has already had surgery to use the bathroom of the gender they were born with. Do they get to use either bathroom? To be fair, you addressed this, but people like Lance and Dan Patrick have given this zero thought.

3. How do we enforce a strict bathroom policy? Do the police deal with this?

4. Is it really that much of an invasion of privacy to use a public bathroom in the first place? Stalls are opaque, after all, and I have never met a woman that would be concerned about washing their hands 3 sinks over from a transgender person. I guess it's all relative; I concede that a young girl might be startled to see a pre-op male in a women's restroom, but the odds of that person being the "hairy dude" that opponents like talking about are FAR less than them being androgynous. Which brings me to my final point:

5. People do not pretend to be trans in order to gain access to women's restrooms. This simply does not happen, ever, and there is 0 evidence to say otherwise. People do stroll in and commit crimes (without bothering with a disguise) but we already have laws for that. Therefore, the scope of our argument relates solely to transgender rights vs. the rights of women and children. Again, to your credit I know you haven't brought this up, but others make the phantom creeps out to be their main argument.

I get where you are coming from. Some pro-LGBT legislation truly do not take into account other people's rights. That's why I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Colorado baker over the angry gay couple, for example. But here, there just isn't nearly enough of a problem to justify banning transgender people from the restrooms that they identify with

I would support turning some restrooms in public places into gender-neutral facilities if people really feel that concerned about privacy. By doing that, the "privacy" side would show empathy towards trans people without giving up their position. Because the right has not proposed such a thing -- in conjunction with comments like Lance referring to trans as "troubled men"" -- I find it hard to believe people like Lance are supporting a bathroom law for the public good. Until I hear a more convincing argument that transgenders are a safety or privacy threat, or until opponents show empathy for transgender people and try to find alternative solutions, I will take the side of the transgenders here.

The problem is what 'rule' do you put into place?

Do you allow 'transgender' to use the 'other sex bathrooms, or do you put forth a rule that 'use whatever bathroom at all, it doesnt matter'?

If the former, well, have fun with the lawsuits galore with *that* line dividing.

If the latter, I wish someone would answer my question -- are the 'liberals' that I know 'bad people' when they say they simply don't want the 'no lines whatsoever'? I mean, to be honest, the *only* viable solution is the 'free for all' solution.

When that only viable in the real-world solution is put to, say, serious liberals like my wife, she is the first to say nfw to that....

(06-13-2018 05:35 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  Transgender rights, for multiple reasons.
1. You discuss women being uncomfortable with a man in their restroom, but what about an androgynous person? Suppose a rather husky biological woman comes in to use the bathroom, and is falsely reported as being a man? This is especially problematic when most trans -- especially post-op trans -- themselves look androgynous. How can you tell the difference without staring at them for several seconds? How do we balance their rights?

How often does this happen now? Have you ever heard of it happening?

Quote:2. What about post-op transgender people? It wouldn't make much sense for someone who has already had surgery to use the bathroom of the gender they were born with. Do they get to use either bathroom? To be fair, you addressed this, but people like Lance and Dan Patrick have given this zero thought.

I would agree with post-ops using the bathroom of the gender that they now are?

Quote:3. How do we enforce a strict bathroom policy? Do the police deal with this?

Only if there is a complaint. Which I would expect to be as infrequent as they are now.

Quote:4. Is it really that much of an invasion of privacy to use a public bathroom in the first place? Stalls are opaque, after all, and I have never met a woman that would be concerned about washing their hands 3 sinks over from a transgender person. I guess it's all relative; I concede that a young girl might be startled to see a pre-op male in a women's restroom, but the odds of that person being the "hairy dude" that opponents like talking about are FAR less than them being androgynous. Which brings me to my final point:

Doesn't this argument cut both ways? I mean, how inconvenient is it for you to use the bathroom of your physical gender?

Quote:5. People do not pretend to be trans in order to gain access to women's restrooms. This simply does not happen, ever, and there is 0 evidence to say otherwise. People do stroll in and commit crimes (without bothering with a disguise) but we already have laws for that. Therefore, the scope of our argument relates solely to transgender rights vs. the rights of women and children. Again, to your credit I know you haven't brought this up, but others make the phantom creeps out to be their main argument.

It doesn't happen now because it isn't legal so the risk isn't worth whatever reward there may be. Change the risk-reward calculus and you may very well get a different answer.

For about five years in the mid-1980s I officed with a law firm in the midtown area. I often took lunch at various restaurants in Montrose. One day I was at a urinal in the men's room when what appeared to be a very attractive young Hispanic woman, with a very large chest and wearing jeans, walked in. "She" proceeded to another urinal where she unzipped and did "her" thing. I wasn't quite sure what had just happened, but I wasn't troubled by it.

Quote:I get where you are coming from. Some pro-LGBT legislation truly do not take into account other people's rights. That's why I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Colorado baker over the angry gay couple, for example. But here, there just isn't nearly enough of a problem to justify banning transgender people from the restrooms that they identify with

The fact that it doesn't happen under current law does not mean that wouldn't happen if the law were changed. Doesn't mean that it would happen either. We just don't know.

Quote:I would support turning some restrooms in public places into gender-neutral facilities if people really feel that concerned about privacy. By doing that, the "privacy" side would show empathy towards trans people without giving up their position.

I agree that this is probably the ultimate solution. But two problems. One, it's damned expensive to convert existing buildings, particularly since you ave to have plumbing for whatever you do. Is this really a big enough problem to justify that? Two, I've seen numerous instances were this was offered to trans people in individual cases and that wasn't good enough. I do think this is where we will evolve over time.

Quote:Because the right has not proposed such a thing -- in conjunction with comments like Lance referring to trans as "troubled men"" -- I find it hard to believe people like Lance are supporting a bathroom law for the public good. Until I hear a more convincing argument that transgenders are a safety or privacy threat, or until opponents show empathy for transgender people and try to find alternative solutions, I will take the side of the transgenders here.

I find this line of argument particularly troubling. There seems to be this rush to attribute to bad will or evil intent any position other than, "LGBT persons get everything they want, and the hell with anyone else's interests." I think there are sensible, thoughtful people with legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue. I'm not sure that I'd put Dan Patrick in that group, but I do think Lance's views are sincerely held. I recall and interview with him right after he was called up from the Astros' then AAA farm club in New Orleans in which he said that one of the best things about being called up was that he got out of such a sinful city. Like it or not, there are many such people, and their views deserve consideration, wether you agree with them or not. There is way too much "my way or the highway" argument from a group that was itself mistreated as a result of such thinking for centuries.