Maybe the title of this post should be “Lying liars and the lies they told and tell.”
According to The Houston Chronicle, the official journalistic stenographer of liberal radicals, the Hollywood extreme left’s money-machine, the ACLU’s commitment to the national transgender movement, and the Greater Houston Partnership’s need to grease government contracts and regulatory advantage for its members, successful leaders of the anti-HERO ordinance are liars and the rest of us are their mindless dupes.
Humiliated at the crushing burden that a free and blind ballot box imposes upon social radicals and embittered that their philosophical and political opponents did not wave the white flags of surrender in what has made the City of Houston a national focal point in a cultural war that threatens our society, the Chronicle leads its perverse national hallelujah choir in lashing out our side with its own brand of lies since its defeat.
If the Chronicle really wants to make the City of Houston the Alamo of the cultural wars of the United States of America then we are fully prepared to draw the line right here and right now. But in defeat did it really have to double down in its published vile bordering on hate-speech at those of us who are guilty only of defending our principles?
The Chronicle and its cultural-declining enablers say those who believe the HERO ordinance gives actual legal protection, an affirmative defense, or a cause for civil action to a man – a person with a penis – to enter a woman’s bathroom are liars.
The proponents of the HERO ordinance cited a “city law” that said a person could not enter a restroom of the opposite sex with the “intent to cause a disturbance.” Make no mistake about it: it is on the basis of that often-quoted phrase in this campaign that the Chronicle and its side of cultural radicals our side as liars.
The proposed ordinance – think of it as the city’s constitution – elevated gender identity to a new standard of protection. Otherwise, why propose it? Why pass it?
Armed with the new ordinance, we believe that lawyers could argue that man-with-a-penis-client did not enter into that woman’s restroom to “create a disturbance”; rather, he entered because that is how he identifies.
Why in the world would one believe that the ACLU would pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into this campaign if that organization comprised of the most radical, destructive elements of the nation’s liberal and legal elites were worried one nanosecond about a phrase as subjunctive, interpretive, or more wishy-washy meaningless as “to create a disturbance?”
Houston. We have a problem, but we also have an historic opportunity. The Chronicle and those who continue to vilify and mock our side for our cultural values have chosen to keep this battle alive. Remarkably, the person that wants to bring it back? Bill King. That’s right, the “Republican” choice for mayor. Here is what King and his opponent in the runoff, Sylvester Turner, have to say about the ordinance:
King has been criticized for not taking a clear stance on HERO but he has said he didn’t like the ordinance as written. He now says he is concerned about the message HERO’s repeal sent about Houston.
“I think we need some time to heal the bruised feelings on both sides,” King said. “But I absolutely intend to call all the stakeholders together at some point in time and begin a discussion about how do we best go about demonstrating to the rest of the world the kind of city Houston really is.”
Sylvester Turner has supported the equal rights ordinance throughout his campaign. But he sounds less inclined to bring it back — even a modified version — saying the voters have spoken.
“This is a democratic process,” Turner said. “The people voted on Nov. 3, and I think it’s important now to deal with a whole host of issues that are important to every Houstonian.”
King thumbs his nose at the voters and Turner supports them? Who’d a thunk it? Ahem.
In the name of honest debate, the Chronicle has since its humiliating defeat published mocking pictures of transgenders in restrooms thus belittling our viewpoint. It has published hate-speech actually labeling us as racists by analogy.
Look at some of the screenshots unleashed by the Chronicle in the days immediately after its humiliating defeat. The words of the Chronicle have been vicious. As they say, however, one picture is worth a thousand words. Let’s take a look at several.
The Chronicle loses and it debates by smear.
We have apparently reached a point in this community where our once-leading institutions – the newspaper and the business community in the form of the Greater Houston Partnership – are seemingly joining with others to actually encourage if not enable national organizations to punish the citizens of Houston economically for our commitment to our values.
Laugh at us. Mock us. Call us liars. Call us racists. The Chronicle and its assembled team of radical liberals are fighting in the gutters of society.
If this is the battle you want; then, this is the battle you will have and there is no better place to fight it than in Houston.
David, this is some of the best writing on the subject I have seen. You should unleash your dogs of roar more often.
So, David, I take it your view is that it’s OK to tell a transgendered person they don’t deserve any protections from discrimination? That they need to just move on and find another place to live/eat/shop/pee? That’s very Christian of you.
You make it sound like the end of civilization Ross. How many trannies are there in Houston? How often are they discriminated against? Parker overstepped and the people had their say because she wanted to be on the bleeding edge of liberal issues. Many of us think a guy in a woman’s restroom is a disturbance all by itself and even more think possessing a penis qualifies you as a guy in the first place. If someone wants to mutilate their body and go through the courts to declare their new gender, that’s fine but unless you’re going to have a provision where men found in women’s restrooms are carted away to make their new found gender identity an immediate reality, forget it. And in a city this size, I’m willing to bet almost every business already caters to any customer willing to pay what is being charged. That’s simply good business so get over it.
So, Ross, I take it is your view that it’s OK for the city to tell our wives, sisters and daughters that their privacy doesn’t deserve protection? That it’s OK for the city to interfere in the freedom of association of private parties? That it’s OK for the city to trample property rights? That it’s OK to give whiney loser passed up for promotion to file a complaint arguing “it’s because I’m gay, isn’t it”? That it’s OK to force the rest of us to cater to the narcissistic delusions of the sexually disoriented?
HERO would have done none of those. If you run a business open to the public, you have to serve ALL of the public. I suppose you want to repeal the rest of the anti-discrimination laws as well, just so you can exclude Blacks and Mexicans from your business. It’s amazing how the anti-gay/anti-transgender language sounds just like the anti-black language from the civil rights battles of the 60’s.
I believe that my time, labor and property are my own. I am not a public resource to be managed by the state. In a free society, people have the liberty to associate with whom they want, and on terms that are voluntary and mutually beneficial. I do not force my presence on those who do not desire it, and I ask that this courtesy and respect be granted in kind. In a free society, you have no right to demand that I provide you with goods and services. To argue otherwise is to advocate slavery.
Let’s say that two lesbians open up a bar that seeks to cater to women only. Shouldn’t they have the right to exclude me – a man – from their bar? Why not? It’s their bar.
Let’s say that a woman opens up a health club that caters exclusively to women. They want a space where women can exercise and do yoga without being stared at by hairy horny men like me. Shouldn’t they and only they have the freedom to exclude me from the premises? How does that decision oppress me? How does it violate my rights?
Yesterday’s victims have become today’s bullies, intoxicated by narcissism, rage and an out-sized sense of entitlement,
“I demand that you bake me a cake for my big fat gay wedding! Do it or else I will sue!”
“I demand that you photograph my gay wedding! Do it, or else I will call the police!”
“I demand that you allow me to use your property for my gay wedding and reception! Do it or else I will sic the Human Rights Commission on you to teach you a lesson in tolerance!”
The term “public accommodation” simply means communism on the installment plan.
Thank the gods that HERO went down in flames.
Excellent article, I agree completely. Dave Wilson’s charter amendment (Gender Identity) is going through the courts, we should be voting on that in two years.
That would be the one where a transgender person who has had reassignment surgery would still have to use the restroom of their birth gender? Utterly stupid piece of proposed ordinance from an alleged Christian.
How utterly clinical: a REASSIGNMENT SURGERY. How utterly governmental!
George Scott
How utterly Ross!
Well said. Could we get a “Like” button?
Ross – you keep using that word, “Christian”. I don’t believe that you actually understand what it means.
Well Fat Albert: Christ did not hide behind a phony name. Why don’t you start accelerating your understanding by being more Christ-like?
George Scott
George,
I post on a number of different forums/blogs/etc. using the pseudonym “Fat Albert”. There are a number of reasons , both personal and professional, that I feel it is wise to do so. The name attached to the post doesn’t affect the truth contained therein.
I understand that it bugs you that you don’t know my actual name. Tough noogies. Frankly, given your obsession, I’m pleased that you DON’T know my name.
A coward by any name is still a coward. You criticize people; you mock their beliefs; you belittle their religion (that’s what you did in your previous post) and you hide behind the cloak of secrecy. Slice it; dice it; microwave it; bake it; fry it; roast it; BBQ it; steam it; cook reality however you feel you must. A coward by any preparation is still a coward.
Who are you? What’s your real name? My name is George Scott; 518 Earls Court; Katy, Texas; 77450; Home phone: 281-392-2163. Who are you, gutless?
Social Security number, please?
(Sigh) George, George, George. . . . .
Thanks for the personal info, but really – I couldn’t care less. (If you’re that lonely I’m sure there are some dating sites. . . . )
I’ve never belittled a person’s religion, ever. I simply pointed out to Ross that his use of the term “Christian” falls outside of the normally accepted usage patterns. He feels OK to use it as a bludgeon why aren’t you whining at him?
As for the rest – your use of the word coward, mean little. Having declined to join the discussion and argue your point on it’s intellectual merits, you simply scurry around on the periphery tossing in your occasional off target jibes. It reminded me of a magpie stealing the random bite while the lions feast on a kill.
If you have something to actually contribute to the conversation, fine, otherwise, I suspect that we’d all prefer that you simply lurk about without injecting your whiney-assed comments.
Fat Albert the coward: It is obvious that you have a psychological compulsiveness at getting the last word. It’s yours. So take your best shot knowing that you get it. Wow. A coward and a genuine intellectual. Take your best shot buddy. It’s all yours. Can you control yourself? Do you have to take the bait? Or, as I suspect, do you have the intellectual honesty of a coward and the intellectual discipline of a hamster in heat?
I know what Christian means, @Fat, and I stand by my usage of it. I was told a long time ago that being a Christian is all about how you live your own life, and how you act. It isn’t about touting your Christianity, or criticizing others for not being Christian enough, or trying to force others to live the way you prefer.
Ross,
This whole HERO thing has never been about people who have had gender reassignment surgery. How could it be? If you’re living as a woman, dressing as a woman, acting like a woman, and you enter a woman’s bathroom – who the hell is going to notice? Nobody’s doing DNA checks at the door. If you keep your skirt down (or your pants up) who’s going to know?
Go in, do your business, leave. Nobody freaking cares!!!!!
If Annise Parker had simply proposed a reasonable ordinance and let it run its course, there would have never been an issue. ‘Cause, honestly it never was an issue. The problem arose when she proposed an outrageous ordinance and tried to ram it down everybody’s throat. And, when her constituents balked, she put on her high-and-mighty hat and threw out perfectly valid petitions. When people sued, she personally threatened pastors and churches, when courts ruled against her, she appealed, when she finally ran out of appeals she tried to manipulate the ballot language and she got slapped down by the courts yet again. And, finally the voters spoke decisively and handed her a stunning defeat.
And, then Ms. Parker, who has been elected to office by the voters of the City of Houston (while running as an openly gay candidate) no less than 6 times, has the unmitigated gall to claim that the defeat of HERO is because the voters are all bigoted and anti-GLBT. Good grief!!!!!
So, please refrain from trying to stuff people who disagree with the Mayor on this issue into your little “non-Christian” bin. People of good faith and honest intent can disagree without the need to resort to that kind of cat calling.
She was also openly gay when running for an at large city council position so make that 9 times that the city voters elected her.