(06-11-2018 10:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Best solution: no legislation at all.

This history seems proof positive (as if we needed it) of the wisdom that the government that governs least governs best.

For similar reasons, my dear old Dad's default position on any proposed legislation was No. He would change his mind if the merits warranted, but he started with the presumption that any proposed government initiative should be met with skepticism. He was onto something.

So let's say HERO actually did include a bathroom portion (as opposed to just being a more general, anti-discrimination bill that outline more protected classes). If it was being made to oppose legislation that was being put forth in Texas, and across the country, and get ahead of legislation that mandated what bathrooms people could use, would that be warranted?

In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

I do see merit in the approach of initial opposition of new legislation and the need to be swayed to support it.

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

Agree.

For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.

So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Best solution: no legislation at all.

This history seems proof positive (as if we needed it) of the wisdom that the government that governs least governs best.

For similar reasons, my dear old Dad's default position on any proposed legislation was No. He would change his mind if the merits warranted, but he started with the presumption that any proposed government initiative should be met with skepticism. He was onto something.

So let's say HERO actually did include a bathroom portion (as opposed to just being a more general, anti-discrimination bill that outline more protected classes). If it was being made to oppose legislation that was being put forth in Texas, and across the country, and get ahead of legislation that mandated what bathrooms people could use, would that be warranted?

In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

I do see merit in the approach of initial opposition of new legislation and the need to be swayed to support it.

Actually the bathroom issue isnt 'explicit', but it is still an issue in the proposed bill. Especially when you read the definitions of 'protected characteristic', 'discriminate', and 'public accommodation'.

The position that Lance outlined with regards to restrooms is *definitely* in play here. Lad, you are correct that the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' is not in the bill; but should a place of business have a restriction on a transgender not using a particular bathroom it would very definitely be a violation of the statute.

I wouldn't add to your extra 'harshness' on Lance's position because it supposedly 'isnt in the bill'. Explicitly you are correct, but the construction of the ordinance absolutely makes it an issue.

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.

So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).

To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.

And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

(06-11-2018 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Best solution: no legislation at all.

This history seems proof positive (as if we needed it) of the wisdom that the government that governs least governs best.

For similar reasons, my dear old Dad's default position on any proposed legislation was No. He would change his mind if the merits warranted, but he started with the presumption that any proposed government initiative should be met with skepticism. He was onto something.

So let's say HERO actually did include a bathroom portion (as opposed to just being a more general, anti-discrimination bill that outline more protected classes). If it was being made to oppose legislation that was being put forth in Texas, and across the country, and get ahead of legislation that mandated what bathrooms people could use, would that be warranted?

In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

I do see merit in the approach of initial opposition of new legislation and the need to be swayed to support it.

Actually the bathroom issue isnt 'explicit', but it is still an issue in the proposed bill. Especially when you read the definitions of 'protected characteristic', 'discriminate', and 'public accommodation'.

The position that Lance outlined with regards to restrooms is *definitely* in play here. Lad, you are correct that the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' is not in the bill; but should a place of business have a restriction on a transgender not using a particular bathroom it would very definitely be a violation of the statute.

I wouldn't add to your extra 'harshness' on Lance's position because it supposedly 'isnt in the bill'. Explicitly you are correct, but the construction of the ordinance absolutely makes it an issue.

This is Lance's quote:

Quote:“I played professional baseball for 15 years, but my family is more important. My wife and I have four daughters. Proposition 1 would allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. It’s better to prevent this danger by closing women’s restrooms to men rather than waiting for a crime to happen. Join me to stop the violation of privacy and discrimination against women.”

HERO did not allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, it expanded on the types of protected classes (as you said).

So yes, it would have, for example, prevented an establishment from having a policy that resulted in a transgender person from using their restroom of choice. But because you have to really reach to getting to HERO "allowing troubled men" into women's restrooms, I do fault Lance a bit more.

And a bit of an aside, there is already a law on the books that addresses people entering the bathroom of the opposite sex to cause problems (City of Houston Ordinance 28-20).

Quote: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person's sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.

So what HERO did was disallow someone else from deciding what sex the person using the restroom is. I think allowing each person to determine which bathroom they should use, in peace, in the best path forward.

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.

So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).

To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.

And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

You are fundamentally wrong there Lad. Notwithstanding that the bill did not use the explicit term 'bathroom' or 'restroom', the bill would have imparted liability on public accommodations in exactly the way the opponents describe.

Just because the explicit term 'bathroom' or 'restroom' isnt used does not automatically make it a non-existent issue. I suggest you retool your attack mechanism there.

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.

So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).

To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.

And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

You are fundamentally wrong there Lad. Notwithstanding that the bill did not use the explicit term 'bathroom' or 'restroom', the bill would have imparted liability on public accommodations in exactly the way the opponents describe.

Just because the explicit term 'bathroom' or 'restroom' isnt used does not automatically make it a non-existent issue. I suggest you retool your attack mechanism there.

Completely disagree about your comment on "exactly the way opponents describe." Read my response to your previous post and let me know what you think. Because opponents described situations that were already illegal.

And are we sure about the impartment of liability of public accommodations? Without HERO, the owner of a restaurant could bar someone from using a restroom and force them to use the other restroom that was not of their gender. If that person was then assaulted by someone already in the bathroom they were forced to use by the restaurant owner, could that restaurant owner hold some liability, since they forced the person to enter the other bathroom? Is it more about shifting what issues an owner is liable for?

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just as a reminder, for those asking why the transgender bathroom portion of HERO was included, HERO was passed around the same time that similar bathroom bills, but in the opposite direction, were being considered (and later passed) in other parts of the country.

Examples:

1) In Texas, there was a bill introduced in Feb 2015 that called for anyone over the age of 13 years found to be in a public restroom of a gender not their own should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, spend up to a year in jail, and face a $4000 fine. And under this proposed bill, building managers who repeatedly and knowingly allow transgender individuals to use the facility of their gender identity would also face a fine of up to $10,000. For the purpose of this bill, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual's birth or the gender established by the individual's chromosomes.

2) NC passed the bathroom bill a few months after HERO (March 2016) that required people to use the bathroom of the sex that was designated on their birth certificate.

3) In 2017, the Texas Senate passed two bills in the regular and then special session that limited bathroom access to the sex listed on one's birth certificate or other IDs issued bu the Texas DPS. The latter portion of the bill (the IDs) was added as a compromise to SB-3 after SB-6 (no IDs) failed to pass the house in the regular session. SB-3 is still pending.

And there are many other states that have attempted to pass similar legislation. So for those asking why these bills are a thing, it's because counter-bills are trying to be passed that police who uses what restrooms. Ordinances like the one in HERO leave it up to each person to decide which bathroom is the right one for them.

Best solution: no legislation at all.

This history seems proof positive (as if we needed it) of the wisdom that the government that governs least governs best.

For similar reasons, my dear old Dad's default position on any proposed legislation was No. He would change his mind if the merits warranted, but he started with the presumption that any proposed government initiative should be met with skepticism. He was onto something.

So let's say HERO actually did include a bathroom portion (as opposed to just being a more general, anti-discrimination bill that outline more protected classes). If it was being made to oppose legislation that was being put forth in Texas, and across the country, and get ahead of legislation that mandated what bathrooms people could use, would that be warranted?

In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

I do see merit in the approach of initial opposition of new legislation and the need to be swayed to support it.

Actually the bathroom issue isnt 'explicit', but it is still an issue in the proposed bill. Especially when you read the definitions of 'protected characteristic', 'discriminate', and 'public accommodation'.

The position that Lance outlined with regards to restrooms is *definitely* in play here. Lad, you are correct that the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' is not in the bill; but should a place of business have a restriction on a transgender not using a particular bathroom it would very definitely be a violation of the statute.

I wouldn't add to your extra 'harshness' on Lance's position because it supposedly 'isnt in the bill'. Explicitly you are correct, but the construction of the ordinance absolutely makes it an issue.

This is Lance's quote:

Quote:“I played professional baseball for 15 years, but my family is more important. My wife and I have four daughters. Proposition 1 would allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. It’s better to prevent this danger by closing women’s restrooms to men rather than waiting for a crime to happen. Join me to stop the violation of privacy and discrimination against women.”

HERO did not allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, it expanded on the types of protected classes (as you said).

What it did do is ban the prophylactic measure of designated sex restrooms.

Quote:So yes, it would have, for example, prevented an establishment from having a policy that resulted in a transgender person from using their restroom of choice. But because you have to really reach to getting to HERO "allowing troubled men" into women's restrooms, I do fault Lance a bit more.

Actually when you ban the prophylactic measure you allow the action. HERO would have made the act of same sex restrooms liable for any owner thereof. Any male restricted from going into the female restroom would have been a prima facie case of discrimination on sex, and potentially on sexual identification. Period.

Quote:And a bit of an aside, there is already a law on the books that addresses people entering the bathroom of the opposite sex to cause problems (City of Houston Ordinance 28-20).

Quote: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person's sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.

Im not concentrating on 'other laws', I am focusing on the subject: the ordinance in question. Again, any restriction on restroom usage would be a prima facie case of discrimination, whether that person using it was cis, straight, drunk, paraplegic, or a ped molester.

Quote:So what HERO did was disallow someone else from deciding what sex the person using the restroom is. I think allowing each person to determine which bathroom they should use, in peace, in the best path forward.

No. It did not make anyone decide what sex the other person was. All it did was create a liability if one created a restriction based on sex or on sexual identification.

Big difference. Stop imparting what you want HERO to say into HERO.

(06-11-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For me it comes down to exactly what is the right in question. If it's the right to pee or poop, then that has never been threatened. There has never, so far as I know, been any proposed legislation to prevent trans people from using any restroom. Just legislation directing them which restroom to use.

So the right at stake appears to be the right to use a restroom that they are comfortable using. But others are uncomfortable with trans persons using their restroom. Primarily this appears to apply to genetic males using female restrooms. So someone is going to be uncomfortable regardless. My question is whose right to be comfortable prevails and why?

So stepping back, we have two situations: 1) the case where you basically enshrine in law that people can't be discriminated based on their transgender status, people can use the bathroom they identify with (which is basically what we have right now); and 2) the case where you enshrine in law that people must use the bathroom associated with the sex on their birth certificate (or in some cases, other ID; which is basically what a number of states started moving towards).

To the comfort point, I would look at the likelihood of an uncomfortable situation being created. Case #1 would almost certainly result in less uncomfortable situations because people get to choose which bathroom to go into, and it's likely that only those who want to cause trouble would do so. In Case #2, all, or some, transgender people will be forced to go into a bathroom that does not match their gender-identity. So (sorry OO), you will have some people who look like men walk into women's restrooms, and some people who look like women walk into men's restrooms.

And using your logic in the first sentence, then having whites only and blacks only areas did not threaten anyone's right to use bathrooms, water fountains, businesses, etc., because there were accommodations made for both colors. So just because there are facilities to use, doesn't mean that things are correct.

In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

You are fundamentally wrong there Lad. Notwithstanding that the bill did not use the explicit term 'bathroom' or 'restroom', the bill would have imparted liability on public accommodations in exactly the way the opponents describe.

Just because the explicit term 'bathroom' or 'restroom' isnt used does not automatically make it a non-existent issue. I suggest you retool your attack mechanism there.

Completely disagree about your comment on "exactly the way opponents describe." Read my response to your previous post and let me know what you think. Because opponents described situations that were already illegal.

And are we sure about the impartment of liability of public accommodations? Without HERO, the owner of a restaurant could bar someone from using a restroom and force them to use the other restroom that was not of their gender. If that person was then assaulted by someone already in the bathroom they were forced to use by the restaurant owner, could that restaurant owner hold some liability, since they forced the person to enter the other bathroom? Is it more about shifting what issues an owner is liable for?

responded above.

The end result is that if one were to try and prevent in prophylactic measure what Lance described, under HERO that prophylactic measure would be made an action that would subject the owner of the public accommodation to civil liability.

Note the difference between prophylactic measures and after the fact measures. Your law that you cite is a criminal violation of a previous action. You cant use that law to preemptively address and curtail an issue.

HERO would essentially make illegal a prophylactic before the fact measure for that issue. Huge difference, Lad.

I mean, under your reasoning, we should make all gun control measures moot (i.e. ban prophylactic measures) and simply rely upon the after-the-fact murder and assault statutes to curb gun violence issues. That is precisely what your vaunted usage of the second law is akin to.

Look Lad, I am not necessarily a proponent of Lance's views. I dont think they balance out in my view.

But opine that what he is stating is 'non-existent' is not correct in the slightest.

(06-11-2018 01:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:15 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Best solution: no legislation at all.

This history seems proof positive (as if we needed it) of the wisdom that the government that governs least governs best.

For similar reasons, my dear old Dad's default position on any proposed legislation was No. He would change his mind if the merits warranted, but he started with the presumption that any proposed government initiative should be met with skepticism. He was onto something.

So let's say HERO actually did include a bathroom portion (as opposed to just being a more general, anti-discrimination bill that outline more protected classes). If it was being made to oppose legislation that was being put forth in Texas, and across the country, and get ahead of legislation that mandated what bathrooms people could use, would that be warranted?

In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

I do see merit in the approach of initial opposition of new legislation and the need to be swayed to support it.

Actually the bathroom issue isnt 'explicit', but it is still an issue in the proposed bill. Especially when you read the definitions of 'protected characteristic', 'discriminate', and 'public accommodation'.

The position that Lance outlined with regards to restrooms is *definitely* in play here. Lad, you are correct that the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' is not in the bill; but should a place of business have a restriction on a transgender not using a particular bathroom it would very definitely be a violation of the statute.

I wouldn't add to your extra 'harshness' on Lance's position because it supposedly 'isnt in the bill'. Explicitly you are correct, but the construction of the ordinance absolutely makes it an issue.

This is Lance's quote:

Quote:“I played professional baseball for 15 years, but my family is more important. My wife and I have four daughters. Proposition 1 would allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. It’s better to prevent this danger by closing women’s restrooms to men rather than waiting for a crime to happen. Join me to stop the violation of privacy and discrimination against women.”

HERO did not allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, it expanded on the types of protected classes (as you said).

What it did do is ban the prophylactic measure of designated sex restrooms.

Quote:So yes, it would have, for example, prevented an establishment from having a policy that resulted in a transgender person from using their restroom of choice. But because you have to really reach to getting to HERO "allowing troubled men" into women's restrooms, I do fault Lance a bit more.

Actually when you ban the prophylactic measure you allow the action. HERO would have made the act of same sex restrooms liable for any owner thereof. Any male restricted from going into the female restroom would have been a prima facie case of discrimination on sex, and potentially on sexual identification. Period.

Quote:And a bit of an aside, there is already a law on the books that addresses people entering the bathroom of the opposite sex to cause problems (City of Houston Ordinance 28-20).

Quote: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person's sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.

Im not concentrating on 'other laws', I am focusing on the subject: the ordinance in question. Again, any restriction on restroom usage would be a prima facie case of discrimination, whether that person using it was cis, straight, drunk, paraplegic, or a ped molester.

Quote:So what HERO did was disallow someone else from deciding what sex the person using the restroom is. I think allowing each person to determine which bathroom they should use, in peace, in the best path forward.

No. It did not make anyone decide what sex the other person was. All it did was create a liability if one created a restriction based on sex or on sexual identification.

Big difference. Stop imparting what you want HERO to say into HERO.

HERO would not have superseded this law, so you must consider it. Since laws were already on the books making it a crime to enter a restroom of an opposite sex to cause a disturbance, or any other criminal act such as assault.

So let's say you witness someone you are suspecting of committing a crime enter a restroom, HERO still allowed you to keep them from entering the restroom, you just could not base that decision solely on the persons gender status.

And to your last comment, you agree with me in the fact that one of the repercussions of HERO was that one could not impart their opinion of another's gender on them, and use that to bar their entry to a restroom. By creating that liability for someone restricting use due to gender, it was requiring that say, a restaurant owner, not use sex/gender in refusing service. Am I missing the big difference?

And you're right that HERO would have resulted in a prima facie case of discrimination if someone denied entry to someone going into a restroom - but, IMO, if you're going to bar, say, a paying customer from using public accommodations, you need to have a better reason than just what they look like. How they act (e.g. drunk) would be legally allowed. There are already laws that allow one to refuse service for saw, drunk and disorderly conduct, right? So the same issues you face with bathroom use, you face with civil rights issues. Theoretically, the same prima facie case exists for someone who refused to serve, say, a drunken :insert race here: person.

(06-11-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let's say HERO actually did include a bathroom portion (as opposed to just being a more general, anti-discrimination bill that outline more protected classes). If it was being made to oppose legislation that was being put forth in Texas, and across the country, and get ahead of legislation that mandated what bathrooms people could use, would that be warranted?

In my mind, a law that dictates using a bathroom based on your assigned sex at birth is more complicated than one that, theoretically, says use whatever bathroom you see fit.

I do see merit in the approach of initial opposition of new legislation and the need to be swayed to support it.

Actually the bathroom issue isnt 'explicit', but it is still an issue in the proposed bill. Especially when you read the definitions of 'protected characteristic', 'discriminate', and 'public accommodation'.

The position that Lance outlined with regards to restrooms is *definitely* in play here. Lad, you are correct that the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' is not in the bill; but should a place of business have a restriction on a transgender not using a particular bathroom it would very definitely be a violation of the statute.

I wouldn't add to your extra 'harshness' on Lance's position because it supposedly 'isnt in the bill'. Explicitly you are correct, but the construction of the ordinance absolutely makes it an issue.

This is Lance's quote:

Quote:“I played professional baseball for 15 years, but my family is more important. My wife and I have four daughters. Proposition 1 would allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. It’s better to prevent this danger by closing women’s restrooms to men rather than waiting for a crime to happen. Join me to stop the violation of privacy and discrimination against women.”

HERO did not allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, it expanded on the types of protected classes (as you said).

What it did do is ban the prophylactic measure of designated sex restrooms.

Quote:So yes, it would have, for example, prevented an establishment from having a policy that resulted in a transgender person from using their restroom of choice. But because you have to really reach to getting to HERO "allowing troubled men" into women's restrooms, I do fault Lance a bit more.

Actually when you ban the prophylactic measure you allow the action. HERO would have made the act of same sex restrooms liable for any owner thereof. Any male restricted from going into the female restroom would have been a prima facie case of discrimination on sex, and potentially on sexual identification. Period.

Quote:And a bit of an aside, there is already a law on the books that addresses people entering the bathroom of the opposite sex to cause problems (City of Houston Ordinance 28-20).

Quote: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person's sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.

Im not concentrating on 'other laws', I am focusing on the subject: the ordinance in question. Again, any restriction on restroom usage would be a prima facie case of discrimination, whether that person using it was cis, straight, drunk, paraplegic, or a ped molester.

Quote:So what HERO did was disallow someone else from deciding what sex the person using the restroom is. I think allowing each person to determine which bathroom they should use, in peace, in the best path forward.

No. It did not make anyone decide what sex the other person was. All it did was create a liability if one created a restriction based on sex or on sexual identification.

Big difference. Stop imparting what you want HERO to say into HERO.

HERO would not have superseded this law, so you must consider it. Since laws were already on the books making it a crime to enter a restroom of an opposite sex to cause a disturbance, or any other criminal act such as assault.

So let's say you witness someone you are suspecting of committing a crime enter a restroom, HERO still allowed you to keep them from entering the restroom, you just could not base that decision solely on the persons gender status.

And to your last comment, you agree with me in the fact that one of the repercussions of HERO was that one could not impart their opinion of another's gender on them, and use that to bar their entry to a restroom. By creating that liability for someone restricting use due to gender, it was requiring that say, a restaurant owner, not use sex/gender in refusing service. Am I missing the big difference?

And you're right that HERO would have resulted in a prima facie case of discrimination if someone denied entry to someone going into a restroom - but, IMO, if you're going to bar, say, a paying customer from using public accommodations, you need to have a better reason than just what they look like. How they act (e.g. drunk) would be legally allowed. There are already laws that allow one to refuse service for saw, drunk and disorderly conduct, right? So the same issues you face with bathroom use, you face with civil rights issues. Theoretically, the same prima facie case exists for someone who refused to serve, say, a drunken :insert race here: person.

Big difference between after the fact criminal statutes and statutes that ban prophylactic actions. See my superseding post.

I guess that since murder statutes are on the books, *you* should be comfortable with getting rid of gun control restrictions. According to your view on the world, the simple fact that an after the fact criminal statute exists on point should be plenty in all cases to obviate any prophylactic measures. Got it.

The simple fact exists that the situation that Lance advocated on *is* implicated in the HERO bill. It may or may not be enough to sway you, but it is implicated. Very directly. But to hold forth that it is non-existent is simply wrong as the day is long.

But I now assume from the course of this conversation that your original basis insight as to to devoidness of the Lance position (that the ordinance lacked the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' made the HERO not apply to the situation) was completely off the mark, right? We are in agreement on that, correct?

(06-11-2018 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually the bathroom issue isnt 'explicit', but it is still an issue in the proposed bill. Especially when you read the definitions of 'protected characteristic', 'discriminate', and 'public accommodation'.

The position that Lance outlined with regards to restrooms is *definitely* in play here. Lad, you are correct that the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' is not in the bill; but should a place of business have a restriction on a transgender not using a particular bathroom it would very definitely be a violation of the statute.

I wouldn't add to your extra 'harshness' on Lance's position because it supposedly 'isnt in the bill'. Explicitly you are correct, but the construction of the ordinance absolutely makes it an issue.

This is Lance's quote:

Quote:“I played professional baseball for 15 years, but my family is more important. My wife and I have four daughters. Proposition 1 would allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. It’s better to prevent this danger by closing women’s restrooms to men rather than waiting for a crime to happen. Join me to stop the violation of privacy and discrimination against women.”

HERO did not allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, it expanded on the types of protected classes (as you said).

What it did do is ban the prophylactic measure of designated sex restrooms.

Quote:So yes, it would have, for example, prevented an establishment from having a policy that resulted in a transgender person from using their restroom of choice. But because you have to really reach to getting to HERO "allowing troubled men" into women's restrooms, I do fault Lance a bit more.

Actually when you ban the prophylactic measure you allow the action. HERO would have made the act of same sex restrooms liable for any owner thereof. Any male restricted from going into the female restroom would have been a prima facie case of discrimination on sex, and potentially on sexual identification. Period.

Quote:And a bit of an aside, there is already a law on the books that addresses people entering the bathroom of the opposite sex to cause problems (City of Houston Ordinance 28-20).

Quote: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally enter any public restroom designated for the exclusive use of the sex opposite to such person's sex without the permission of the owner, tenant, manager, lessee or other person in charge of the premises, in a manner calculated to cause a disturbance.

Im not concentrating on 'other laws', I am focusing on the subject: the ordinance in question. Again, any restriction on restroom usage would be a prima facie case of discrimination, whether that person using it was cis, straight, drunk, paraplegic, or a ped molester.

Quote:So what HERO did was disallow someone else from deciding what sex the person using the restroom is. I think allowing each person to determine which bathroom they should use, in peace, in the best path forward.

No. It did not make anyone decide what sex the other person was. All it did was create a liability if one created a restriction based on sex or on sexual identification.

Big difference. Stop imparting what you want HERO to say into HERO.

HERO would not have superseded this law, so you must consider it. Since laws were already on the books making it a crime to enter a restroom of an opposite sex to cause a disturbance, or any other criminal act such as assault.

So let's say you witness someone you are suspecting of committing a crime enter a restroom, HERO still allowed you to keep them from entering the restroom, you just could not base that decision solely on the persons gender status.

And to your last comment, you agree with me in the fact that one of the repercussions of HERO was that one could not impart their opinion of another's gender on them, and use that to bar their entry to a restroom. By creating that liability for someone restricting use due to gender, it was requiring that say, a restaurant owner, not use sex/gender in refusing service. Am I missing the big difference?

And you're right that HERO would have resulted in a prima facie case of discrimination if someone denied entry to someone going into a restroom - but, IMO, if you're going to bar, say, a paying customer from using public accommodations, you need to have a better reason than just what they look like. How they act (e.g. drunk) would be legally allowed. There are already laws that allow one to refuse service for saw, drunk and disorderly conduct, right? So the same issues you face with bathroom use, you face with civil rights issues. Theoretically, the same prima facie case exists for someone who refused to serve, say, a drunken :insert race here: person.

Big difference between after the fact criminal statutes and statutes that ban prophylactic actions. See my superseding post.

I guess that since murder statutes are on the books, *you* should be comfortable with getting rid of gun control restrictions. According to your view on the world, the simple fact that an after the fact criminal statute exists on point should be plenty in all cases to obviate any prophylactic measures. Got it.

The simple fact exists that the situation that Lance advocated on *is* implicated in the HERO bill. It may or may not be enough to sway you, but it is implicated. Very directly. But to hold forth that it is non-existent is simply wrong as the day is long.

But I now assume from the course of this conversation that your original basis insight as to to devoidness of the Lance position (that the ordinance lacked the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' made the HERO not apply to the situation) was completely off the mark, right? We are in agreement on that, correct?

My goodness, I forgot for a second why I gave the Quad a break. Yes, my entire WORLD VIEW is dictated about my opinion about HERO. Jesus christ, can you not take every argument made and extrapolate it out past infinity? I do appreciate that at least you stopped with the incredibly condescending "Lad World" comment that you used ad nauseum for a while.

My world view is NOT that laws punishing outcomes prevent all crimes. If I had to sum up my world view, it would be that we should evaluate the liklihood, or actual occurrence, of crimes prior to legislating on them. Not as libertarian as George's relative's stance, but it's a similar vein. So with regards to gun control, I think there are enough gun-related crimes that having preventative laws are a good idea, depending on what they are.

Now to the bathrooms, I don't see it as a rationale argument that people will take advantage of someone being unable to stop them from entering a restroom, based solely on their gender, to assault others in restrooms.

You misunderstand my position based on my initial comment about Lance - I never once said that the bathroom issue was NOT connected to HERO because of the lack of the word "bathroom." If you read what I was responding to, I was responding to comments that talked about how legislating governing bathroom use could be done better, and in that instance I was trying to respond and adjust the language of HERO, only to find out HERO did not address it.

And because of that, we are not in agreement about the devoidness of Lance's opinion. One, just read my comment - you seem to be jumping to a large conclusion:

Quote: And honestly, this does make me feel a bit worse about Lance's statement now, given that HERO never broached the subject specifically.

And two, the fact that Lance boiled HERO down to an argument about restrooms and his faith, indicates to me that he likely wasn't very informed on the matter. And even if he did know what HERO was, his boiling of HERO down to a bathroom issue did a disservice to all those who both supported and opposed his position. HERO had far more going on than just transgender bathroom use, but look at what we've been debating - one small, implicit result of it. So yeah, I still feel a bit worse about Lance's statement knowing that, he duped not only me, but plenty of other potential voters into thinking that HERO was not quite the bill it was made out to be.

Also, how does my comment about civil rights laws compare? It would seem that the situations would be near identical. I was hoping you would comment.

(06-11-2018 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is Lance's quote:


HERO did not allow troubled men who claim to be women to enter women's bathrooms, it expanded on the types of protected classes (as you said).

What it did do is ban the prophylactic measure of designated sex restrooms.

Quote:So yes, it would have, for example, prevented an establishment from having a policy that resulted in a transgender person from using their restroom of choice. But because you have to really reach to getting to HERO "allowing troubled men" into women's restrooms, I do fault Lance a bit more.

Actually when you ban the prophylactic measure you allow the action. HERO would have made the act of same sex restrooms liable for any owner thereof. Any male restricted from going into the female restroom would have been a prima facie case of discrimination on sex, and potentially on sexual identification. Period.

Quote:And a bit of an aside, there is already a law on the books that addresses people entering the bathroom of the opposite sex to cause problems (City of Houston Ordinance 28-20).

Im not concentrating on 'other laws', I am focusing on the subject: the ordinance in question. Again, any restriction on restroom usage would be a prima facie case of discrimination, whether that person using it was cis, straight, drunk, paraplegic, or a ped molester.

Quote:So what HERO did was disallow someone else from deciding what sex the person using the restroom is. I think allowing each person to determine which bathroom they should use, in peace, in the best path forward.

No. It did not make anyone decide what sex the other person was. All it did was create a liability if one created a restriction based on sex or on sexual identification.

Big difference. Stop imparting what you want HERO to say into HERO.

HERO would not have superseded this law, so you must consider it. Since laws were already on the books making it a crime to enter a restroom of an opposite sex to cause a disturbance, or any other criminal act such as assault.

So let's say you witness someone you are suspecting of committing a crime enter a restroom, HERO still allowed you to keep them from entering the restroom, you just could not base that decision solely on the persons gender status.

And to your last comment, you agree with me in the fact that one of the repercussions of HERO was that one could not impart their opinion of another's gender on them, and use that to bar their entry to a restroom. By creating that liability for someone restricting use due to gender, it was requiring that say, a restaurant owner, not use sex/gender in refusing service. Am I missing the big difference?

And you're right that HERO would have resulted in a prima facie case of discrimination if someone denied entry to someone going into a restroom - but, IMO, if you're going to bar, say, a paying customer from using public accommodations, you need to have a better reason than just what they look like. How they act (e.g. drunk) would be legally allowed. There are already laws that allow one to refuse service for saw, drunk and disorderly conduct, right? So the same issues you face with bathroom use, you face with civil rights issues. Theoretically, the same prima facie case exists for someone who refused to serve, say, a drunken :insert race here: person.

Big difference between after the fact criminal statutes and statutes that ban prophylactic actions. See my superseding post.

I guess that since murder statutes are on the books, *you* should be comfortable with getting rid of gun control restrictions. According to your view on the world, the simple fact that an after the fact criminal statute exists on point should be plenty in all cases to obviate any prophylactic measures. Got it.

The simple fact exists that the situation that Lance advocated on *is* implicated in the HERO bill. It may or may not be enough to sway you, but it is implicated. Very directly. But to hold forth that it is non-existent is simply wrong as the day is long.

But I now assume from the course of this conversation that your original basis insight as to to devoidness of the Lance position (that the ordinance lacked the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' made the HERO not apply to the situation) was completely off the mark, right? We are in agreement on that, correct?

My goodness, I forgot for a second why I gave the Quad a break. Yes, my entire WORLD VIEW is dictated about my opinion about HERO. Jesus christ, can you not take every argument made and extrapolate it out past infinity? I do appreciate that at least you stopped with the incredibly condescending "Lad World" comment that you used ad nauseum for a while.

My world view is NOT that laws punishing outcomes prevent all crimes. If I had to sum up my world view, it would be that we should evaluate the liklihood, or actual occurrence, of crimes prior to legislating on them. Not as libertarian as George's relative's stance, but it's a similar vein. So with regards to gun control, I think there are enough gun-related crimes that having preventative laws are a good idea, depending on what they are.

Now to the bathrooms, I don't see it as a rationale argument that people will take advantage of someone being unable to stop them from entering a restroom, based solely on their gender, to assault others in restrooms.

You misunderstand my position based on my initial comment about Lance - I never once said that the bathroom issue was NOT connected to HERO because of the lack of the word "bathroom." If you read what I was responding to, I was responding to comments that talked about how legislating governing bathroom use could be done better, and in that instance I was trying to respond and adjust the language of HERO, only to find out HERO did not address it.

And because of that, we are not in agreement about the devoidness of Lance's opinion. One, just read my comment - you seem to be jumping to a large conclusion:

Quote: And honestly, this does make me feel a bit worse about Lance's statement now, given that HERO never broached the subject specifically.

And two, the fact that Lance boiled HERO down to an argument about restrooms and his faith, indicates to me that he likely wasn't very informed on the matter. And even if he did know what HERO was, his boiling of HERO down to a bathroom issue did a disservice to all those who both supported and opposed his position. HERO had far more going on than just transgender bathroom use, but look at what we've been debating - one small, implicit result of it. So yeah, I still feel a bit worse about Lance's statement knowing that, he duped not only me, but plenty of other potential voters into thinking that HERO was not quite the bill it was made out to be.

Also, how does my comment about civil rights laws compare? It would seem that the situations would be near identical. I was hoping you would comment.

Lad,

while you complain about stretching items to infinity, are you even aware of what the word 'non-existent', or the phrase 'doesnt broach on' actually mean?

You started out with a comment about

Quote:figur[ing] out what language it used to define bathroom use - here's the irony - there is none

But the bill heavily impacts bathroom use when read properly. Sorry that you did not do that. But, to be honest, it was put in there in a very oblique way; enough where a word search really cant find it. But the issue is in there, and the actions *are* impacted by it notwithstanding your word search for 'restroom' and/or 'bathroom'.

And further, yes, there is a decent amount of good stuff in the law, but (imo) it was prepared unabashedly with the broad language to have an 'implied bathroom law'. Many ways you can legislate housing (which it did), employment (which it did), and the ability to participate in public transaction processes (which it did) without expanding it so large as to encompass a 'bathroom bill of rights'. But yet, again imo, that is the reason why it was so broad.

And that broadness actually fooled you into thinking it didnt cover bathrooms, mind you.

Again, I am not necessarily supportive of the position that Lance took on this. And, had it been my jurisdiction I would have hoped that the housing, employment, and public transactions bill would have been employed. But again, the bill was broadly worded, and most likely broadly worded *to encompass* the bathroom issue. Stupid as **** by the drafters.

But to say that Lance was 'uninformed' (he shows a better understanding of the bill outcome vis a vis bathrooms that you have), or that they

Quote:created an issue that was non-existent

is demonstrably incorrect. It did exist in the bill. And the opponents correctly identified that existing issue buried in broad verbiage, and used it to the best political effect that they could.

But stop with the **** that, because you disagree with it, that it is non-existent. I disagree with the outcome, but the issue is very real *and* existent in the bill, notwithstanding *you* stretching *that* point to infinity.

(06-11-2018 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What it did do is ban the prophylactic measure of designated sex restrooms.


Actually when you ban the prophylactic measure you allow the action. HERO would have made the act of same sex restrooms liable for any owner thereof. Any male restricted from going into the female restroom would have been a prima facie case of discrimination on sex, and potentially on sexual identification. Period.


Im not concentrating on 'other laws', I am focusing on the subject: the ordinance in question. Again, any restriction on restroom usage would be a prima facie case of discrimination, whether that person using it was cis, straight, drunk, paraplegic, or a ped molester.


No. It did not make anyone decide what sex the other person was. All it did was create a liability if one created a restriction based on sex or on sexual identification.

Big difference. Stop imparting what you want HERO to say into HERO.

HERO would not have superseded this law, so you must consider it. Since laws were already on the books making it a crime to enter a restroom of an opposite sex to cause a disturbance, or any other criminal act such as assault.

So let's say you witness someone you are suspecting of committing a crime enter a restroom, HERO still allowed you to keep them from entering the restroom, you just could not base that decision solely on the persons gender status.

And to your last comment, you agree with me in the fact that one of the repercussions of HERO was that one could not impart their opinion of another's gender on them, and use that to bar their entry to a restroom. By creating that liability for someone restricting use due to gender, it was requiring that say, a restaurant owner, not use sex/gender in refusing service. Am I missing the big difference?

And you're right that HERO would have resulted in a prima facie case of discrimination if someone denied entry to someone going into a restroom - but, IMO, if you're going to bar, say, a paying customer from using public accommodations, you need to have a better reason than just what they look like. How they act (e.g. drunk) would be legally allowed. There are already laws that allow one to refuse service for saw, drunk and disorderly conduct, right? So the same issues you face with bathroom use, you face with civil rights issues. Theoretically, the same prima facie case exists for someone who refused to serve, say, a drunken :insert race here: person.

Big difference between after the fact criminal statutes and statutes that ban prophylactic actions. See my superseding post.

I guess that since murder statutes are on the books, *you* should be comfortable with getting rid of gun control restrictions. According to your view on the world, the simple fact that an after the fact criminal statute exists on point should be plenty in all cases to obviate any prophylactic measures. Got it.

The simple fact exists that the situation that Lance advocated on *is* implicated in the HERO bill. It may or may not be enough to sway you, but it is implicated. Very directly. But to hold forth that it is non-existent is simply wrong as the day is long.

But I now assume from the course of this conversation that your original basis insight as to to devoidness of the Lance position (that the ordinance lacked the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' made the HERO not apply to the situation) was completely off the mark, right? We are in agreement on that, correct?

My goodness, I forgot for a second why I gave the Quad a break. Yes, my entire WORLD VIEW is dictated about my opinion about HERO. Jesus christ, can you not take every argument made and extrapolate it out past infinity? I do appreciate that at least you stopped with the incredibly condescending "Lad World" comment that you used ad nauseum for a while.

My world view is NOT that laws punishing outcomes prevent all crimes. If I had to sum up my world view, it would be that we should evaluate the liklihood, or actual occurrence, of crimes prior to legislating on them. Not as libertarian as George's relative's stance, but it's a similar vein. So with regards to gun control, I think there are enough gun-related crimes that having preventative laws are a good idea, depending on what they are.

Now to the bathrooms, I don't see it as a rationale argument that people will take advantage of someone being unable to stop them from entering a restroom, based solely on their gender, to assault others in restrooms.

You misunderstand my position based on my initial comment about Lance - I never once said that the bathroom issue was NOT connected to HERO because of the lack of the word "bathroom." If you read what I was responding to, I was responding to comments that talked about how legislating governing bathroom use could be done better, and in that instance I was trying to respond and adjust the language of HERO, only to find out HERO did not address it.

And because of that, we are not in agreement about the devoidness of Lance's opinion. One, just read my comment - you seem to be jumping to a large conclusion:

Quote: And honestly, this does make me feel a bit worse about Lance's statement now, given that HERO never broached the subject specifically.

And two, the fact that Lance boiled HERO down to an argument about restrooms and his faith, indicates to me that he likely wasn't very informed on the matter. And even if he did know what HERO was, his boiling of HERO down to a bathroom issue did a disservice to all those who both supported and opposed his position. HERO had far more going on than just transgender bathroom use, but look at what we've been debating - one small, implicit result of it. So yeah, I still feel a bit worse about Lance's statement knowing that, he duped not only me, but plenty of other potential voters into thinking that HERO was not quite the bill it was made out to be.

Also, how does my comment about civil rights laws compare? It would seem that the situations would be near identical. I was hoping you would comment.

Lad,

while you complain about stretching items to infinity, are you even aware of what the word 'non-existent', or the phrase 'doesnt broach on' actually mean?

You started out with a comment about

Quote:figur[ing] out what language it used to define bathroom use - here's the irony - there is none

But the bill heavily impacts bathroom use when read properly. Sorry that you did not do that. But, to be honest, it was put in there in a very oblique way; enough where a word search really cant find it. But the issue is in there, and the actions *are* impacted by it notwithstanding your word search for 'restroom' and/or 'bathroom'.

And further, yes, there is a decent amount of good stuff in the law, but (imo) it was prepared unabashedly with the broad language to have an 'implied bathroom law'. Many ways you can legislate housing (which it did), employment (which it did), and the ability to participate in public transaction processes (which it did) without expanding it so large as to encompass a 'bathroom bill of rights'. But yet, again imo, that is the reason why it was so broad.

And that broadness actually fooled you into thinking it didnt cover bathrooms, mind you.

Again, I am not necessarily supportive of the position that Lance took on this. And, had it been my jurisdiction I would have hoped that the housing, employment, and public transactions bill would have been employed. But again, the bill was broadly worded, and most likely broadly worded *to encompass* the bathroom issue. Stupid as **** by the drafters.

But to say that Lance was 'uninformed' (he shows a better understanding of the bill outcome vis a vis bathrooms that you have), or that they

Quote:created an issue that was non-existent

is demonstrably incorrect. It did exist in the bill. And the opponents correctly identified that existing issue buried in broad verbiage, and used it to the best political effect that they could.

But stop with the **** that, because you disagree with it, that it is non-existent. I disagree with the outcome, but the issue is very real *and* existent in the bill, notwithstanding *you* stretching *that* point to infinity.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Regarding my "broach" comment - you left out that I said "broached the subject SPECIFICALLY." And to my "non-existent" comments, what I was trying to convey was that there doesn't appear to be evidence to suggest that the type of crimes that Lance and other opponents suggest would happen with HERO are happening now, or are being thwarted now because people can pro-actively stop someone from using the restroom. And that was the context to my use of the word "non-existent." But I'll take it back and say "improbable" so that you can be given the pleasure of being proven right, since there is a small probability that maybe that situation comes to pass if HERO passed.

Regardless, I was never fooled me into thinking it didn't cover bathrooms. I stated that bathroom accommodations were not explicitly outline in the drafting of the ordinance, and based on the way I, and others on the board talked about HERO, it appeared as if many thought there was language specific to bathroom use. Heck, we were even calling it "the bathroom bill" at some point, when it is really a much broader bill.

For a specific example, look at Owl#'s post #115 (https://csnbbs.com/thread-851367-post-15...id15337301)

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.

So, even here, on a board with very well informed people, people like Owl#'s and myself did not realize there was not a specific provision/language regarding the use of restrooms in HERO. And we made that mistake because of the way the issue was framed, and how people like Berkman, communicated it to the public.

After I noted that revelation , I never stated that HERO didn't cover the issue, did I? Because I actually read some of the HERO text, I understood how broad the language was and why the bathroom issue did fall under its pretext. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't, again, misrepresent my understanding of the issue.

The opponents of HERO took a small issue that COULD result from the passage of HERO, and made it the be all, end all of HERO, and created an environment where educated and informed people were manipulated into thinking that a specific provision was included in an ordinance, when it wasn't. So you're right that maybe Berkman was more informed, and what he wanted to do was to leverage a wedge issue and deceive people about what HERO actually was. Even better.

My issue is both with Lance's opinion, but also with the use of a improbable situation being thought up to kill a bill, and using that improbable situation to completely distort what the bill was about.

(06-11-2018 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  HERO would not have superseded this law, so you must consider it. Since laws were already on the books making it a crime to enter a restroom of an opposite sex to cause a disturbance, or any other criminal act such as assault.

So let's say you witness someone you are suspecting of committing a crime enter a restroom, HERO still allowed you to keep them from entering the restroom, you just could not base that decision solely on the persons gender status.

And to your last comment, you agree with me in the fact that one of the repercussions of HERO was that one could not impart their opinion of another's gender on them, and use that to bar their entry to a restroom. By creating that liability for someone restricting use due to gender, it was requiring that say, a restaurant owner, not use sex/gender in refusing service. Am I missing the big difference?

And you're right that HERO would have resulted in a prima facie case of discrimination if someone denied entry to someone going into a restroom - but, IMO, if you're going to bar, say, a paying customer from using public accommodations, you need to have a better reason than just what they look like. How they act (e.g. drunk) would be legally allowed. There are already laws that allow one to refuse service for saw, drunk and disorderly conduct, right? So the same issues you face with bathroom use, you face with civil rights issues. Theoretically, the same prima facie case exists for someone who refused to serve, say, a drunken :insert race here: person.

Big difference between after the fact criminal statutes and statutes that ban prophylactic actions. See my superseding post.

I guess that since murder statutes are on the books, *you* should be comfortable with getting rid of gun control restrictions. According to your view on the world, the simple fact that an after the fact criminal statute exists on point should be plenty in all cases to obviate any prophylactic measures. Got it.

The simple fact exists that the situation that Lance advocated on *is* implicated in the HERO bill. It may or may not be enough to sway you, but it is implicated. Very directly. But to hold forth that it is non-existent is simply wrong as the day is long.

But I now assume from the course of this conversation that your original basis insight as to to devoidness of the Lance position (that the ordinance lacked the term 'restroom' or 'bathroom' made the HERO not apply to the situation) was completely off the mark, right? We are in agreement on that, correct?

My goodness, I forgot for a second why I gave the Quad a break. Yes, my entire WORLD VIEW is dictated about my opinion about HERO. Jesus christ, can you not take every argument made and extrapolate it out past infinity? I do appreciate that at least you stopped with the incredibly condescending "Lad World" comment that you used ad nauseum for a while.

My world view is NOT that laws punishing outcomes prevent all crimes. If I had to sum up my world view, it would be that we should evaluate the liklihood, or actual occurrence, of crimes prior to legislating on them. Not as libertarian as George's relative's stance, but it's a similar vein. So with regards to gun control, I think there are enough gun-related crimes that having preventative laws are a good idea, depending on what they are.

Now to the bathrooms, I don't see it as a rationale argument that people will take advantage of someone being unable to stop them from entering a restroom, based solely on their gender, to assault others in restrooms.

You misunderstand my position based on my initial comment about Lance - I never once said that the bathroom issue was NOT connected to HERO because of the lack of the word "bathroom." If you read what I was responding to, I was responding to comments that talked about how legislating governing bathroom use could be done better, and in that instance I was trying to respond and adjust the language of HERO, only to find out HERO did not address it.

And because of that, we are not in agreement about the devoidness of Lance's opinion. One, just read my comment - you seem to be jumping to a large conclusion:

Quote: And honestly, this does make me feel a bit worse about Lance's statement now, given that HERO never broached the subject specifically.

And two, the fact that Lance boiled HERO down to an argument about restrooms and his faith, indicates to me that he likely wasn't very informed on the matter. And even if he did know what HERO was, his boiling of HERO down to a bathroom issue did a disservice to all those who both supported and opposed his position. HERO had far more going on than just transgender bathroom use, but look at what we've been debating - one small, implicit result of it. So yeah, I still feel a bit worse about Lance's statement knowing that, he duped not only me, but plenty of other potential voters into thinking that HERO was not quite the bill it was made out to be.

Also, how does my comment about civil rights laws compare? It would seem that the situations would be near identical. I was hoping you would comment.

Lad,

while you complain about stretching items to infinity, are you even aware of what the word 'non-existent', or the phrase 'doesnt broach on' actually mean?

You started out with a comment about

Quote:figur[ing] out what language it used to define bathroom use - here's the irony - there is none

But the bill heavily impacts bathroom use when read properly. Sorry that you did not do that. But, to be honest, it was put in there in a very oblique way; enough where a word search really cant find it. But the issue is in there, and the actions *are* impacted by it notwithstanding your word search for 'restroom' and/or 'bathroom'.

And further, yes, there is a decent amount of good stuff in the law, but (imo) it was prepared unabashedly with the broad language to have an 'implied bathroom law'. Many ways you can legislate housing (which it did), employment (which it did), and the ability to participate in public transaction processes (which it did) without expanding it so large as to encompass a 'bathroom bill of rights'. But yet, again imo, that is the reason why it was so broad.

And that broadness actually fooled you into thinking it didnt cover bathrooms, mind you.

Again, I am not necessarily supportive of the position that Lance took on this. And, had it been my jurisdiction I would have hoped that the housing, employment, and public transactions bill would have been employed. But again, the bill was broadly worded, and most likely broadly worded *to encompass* the bathroom issue. Stupid as **** by the drafters.

But to say that Lance was 'uninformed' (he shows a better understanding of the bill outcome vis a vis bathrooms that you have), or that they

Quote:created an issue that was non-existent

is demonstrably incorrect. It did exist in the bill. And the opponents correctly identified that existing issue buried in broad verbiage, and used it to the best political effect that they could.

But stop with the **** that, because you disagree with it, that it is non-existent. I disagree with the outcome, but the issue is very real *and* existent in the bill, notwithstanding *you* stretching *that* point to infinity.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Regarding my "broach" comment - you left out that I said "broached the subject SPECIFICALLY."

But specifically, the bill affected the subject -- dramatically. It fundamentally changed the way that literally tens of thousands of places would have to operate.

Yet you are caught up in whether it said the magic words, apparently. Or whether the oblique words were hidden in a morass of other provisions. The effects of the bill would be have widespread, tangible, and deep.

I could care less if it was hidden in 15 gabillion words of text -- it isnt whether the outcome is 'specific', the question is the *extent* and *impact* of it. To me, the attempt at hiding the bathroom issues in the morass of other items and to use the overall framework to introduce the topic is as disgusting as Lance's purported nest of wrongdoing. But yet that slips by without any issue or chastisement from your side, does it?

Quote:And to my "non-existent" comments, what I was trying to convey was that there doesn't appear to be evidence to suggest that the type of crimes that Lance and other opponents suggest would happen with HERO are happening now, or are being thwarted now because people can pro-actively stop someone from using the restroom. And that was the context to my use of the word "non-existent." But I'll take it back and say "improbable" so that you can be given the pleasure of being proven right, since there is a small probability that maybe that situation comes to pass if HERO passed.

Here is where you introduced your concept of "non-existent":

Quote:In the end, as I mentioned in another post, HERO had nothing to do with bathrooms, it had everything to do with extending the number of protected classes in the City of Houston. It got co-opted by opponents who created an issue that was non-existent.

If you are referencing the 'numbers of incidents' or somefink, it certainly isnt apparent in the slightest from what you wrote. If that is what you meant to mean, Ill take that at value.

Quote:Regardless, I was never fooled me into thinking it didn't cover bathrooms. I stated that bathroom accommodations were not explicitly outline in the drafting of the ordinance, and based on the way I, and others on the board talked about HERO, it appeared as if many thought there was language specific to bathroom use. Heck, we were even calling it "the bathroom bill" at some point, when it is really a much broader bill.

Per my comment above, it was a sub-rosa bathroom bill. I have no doubt about that. It happened to be sandwiched into a oblique issues about public accommodations. Perhaps you should show some corresponding ire into the efforts to make it as oblique as that.

Quote:So, even here, on a board with very well informed people, people like Owl#'s and myself did not realize there was not a specific provision/language regarding the use of restrooms in HERO. And we made that mistake because of the way the issue was framed, and how people like Berkman, communicated it to the public.

And yet it would have very specific repercussions into precisely what Berkman said it would.

Quote:After I noted that revelation , I never stated that HERO didn't cover the issue, did I? Because I actually read some of the HERO text, I understood how broad the language was and why the bathroom issue did fall under its pretext. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't, again, misrepresent my understanding of the issue.

So even after reading it and seeing it's broadness, and even after stating that the effects would be those that Berkman called out -- you are still mad at Berkman.

Quote:The opponents of HERO took a small issue that COULD result from the passage of HERO,

Let's redefine issue from the ped stance to the 'massive social reengineering by law' issue. And further, defining civil liability for having same sex bathrooms as the issue du jour.

They took a issue that was embedded in a sub-rosa manner and WOULD result from the passage. (The issue being a forced bathroom bill) Again, you are incorrect. There is no doubt that, given language there, that it would be used in that manner. You would have to be daft to think that it only *could*, tbh. But *could* makes Berkman look worse, so you choose that formulation.

You are mad that Berkman took the 'ogling chicks' stance and invoking the potential ped issues. With all respect, I know a lot of liberals that dont want their daughters sharing facilities with every Tom and Harry. I would hazard for that same very reason. Are they all 'evil' as Lance then?

Quote:and made it the be all, end all of HERO, and created an environment where educated and informed people were manipulated into thinking that a specific provision was included in an ordinance, when it wasn't.

The specific provision may not have been included, but the specific outcome sure as hell was ordained by that.

Quote:So you're right that maybe Berkman was more informed, and what he wanted to do was to leverage a wedge issue and deceive people about what HERO actually was. Even better.

Leveraging wedge issues is part and parcel of politics. I suggest you get used to it.

Quote:My issue is both with Lance's opinion, but also with the use of a improbable situation being thought up to kill a bill, and using that improbable situation to completely distort what the bill was about.

No, your issue is about probably about 99 per cent with Lance's opinion, imo. That explains the vehemence in which you seek to chastise lance and somewhat utterly ignore the sub-rosa manner in which the bathroom bill outcome was hidden. I mean you are tossing shciken feathers every which way about distortion this, and distortion that -- but nowhere do you recognize that same level of distortion and deviousness in trying to get the sub-rosa effects past a vote w/o having to acknowledge them.

As for distorting, do you think that passing a bathroom ordinance in such a de facto sub-rosa manner is completely 'distortion-free'?

Good god, they took every effort to hide this sh-t, to where most didnt recognize it being a part of the bill. Kind of masterful in a legally sleazy way to me, but still really distasteful. Yet you complain about the 'distort[ions]' from the Lance quarter and just glaze over the absolute distortion in the sub-rosa nature of what was put forward.

I find that vehemence about distortion on one side and an ignorance of the massive distortion on the other side as very paradoxical.

I guess that, along with the supposed distortions from Lance, that had the bill impact been front and center and there for the world to see brightly and clearly, I would very much sympathize with your ire. But when the other side that promulgates goes to equal, if not more, distortion to hide the impact of the bill, then I am not so 'hopping mad' about it.

It's simple. Just look at the pictograph. If you are wearing a skirt, use the one with the skirt pictograph. If you are wearing pants, use the one with the pants pictograph.

Problem solved.

(06-11-2018 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It's simple. Just look at the pictograph. If you are wearing a skirt, use the one with the skirt pictograph. If you are wearing pants, use the one with the pants pictograph.

Problem solved.

Auch, lad!

http://www.scotclans.com/where-in-scotla...come-from/

Tanq, when the heck did I ever call Lance evil?

You're awful. Don't put words like that in my mouth. Back to hiatus - I can't stand the way in which you debate on this forum.