Lesbian Mayor Trying to CENSOR Pastors' Sermons

[BullKurtz]

"The fear of transgender women—or of fourteen-year-old boys pretending to be transgender women—entering bathrooms to spy on or expose themselves to girls and women is one that, according to experts, has a no basis in reality. Nonetheless, that aspect of the ordinance was stricken from its final version.

Section 17-51(b) of the ordinance contained the provision and was removed from the version that passed."

Calling this "The Bathroom Bill" as Starnes does is entirely inaccurate and misleading, if not an outright lie.

I find this move by the mayor to be most alarming but Starnes isn't telling the full story. This isn't the first time he has played fast and loose with the facts in his articles.

Hold up here.....so you don't like the writer but what about the subject? Why was such a crazy notion ever attempted? You say the mayor's actions are "alarming"....all that stopped males from entering women's bathrooms was if they were "transgender" or not? If it was stripped from the bill, it's because of the public outrage to it. That's some kinda bizarre....are these the same "experts" who say teenage boys wouldn't try to sneak a peek in there, the ones still trying to claim we are warming the planet? Studies done by homos trying to downplay or explain away the various perversions and pedophilia amongst them are a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously. And maybe you can tell me why some loser who believes if they change their junk they will somehow be happier, should get any consideration under the law? We are not obligated to change normal lifestyles to accommodate these freaks...and the more the envelope is pushed, the harder the reaction is going to be.

 

[bodecea]

Todd Starnes isn't reporting this story factually, unsurprising to anyone whom has knowledge of his work. Starnes has a history of playing fast and loose the facts. His articles calls this "The Bathroom Bill" despite the fact that language was stricken from the final version of the ordinance. It isn't a part of the ordinance whatsoever.

Houston Passed Its Equal Rights Ordinance Last Night Texas Monthly

Todd Starnes is full of shit.

Oh...Todd Starnes?

 

[BullKurtz]

Todd Starnes isn't reporting this story factually, unsurprising to anyone whom has knowledge of his work. Starnes has a history of playing fast and loose the facts. His articles calls this "The Bathroom Bill" despite the fact that language was stricken from the final version of the ordinance. It isn't a part of the ordinance whatsoever.

Houston Passed Its Equal Rights Ordinance Last Night Texas Monthly

Todd Starnes is full of shit.

Oh...Todd Starnes?

Oh....Michael Moore? Oh....Rachael Madcow? Oh, Chris Matthews? Oh...MY!

 

[mdk]

"The fear of transgender women—or of fourteen-year-old boys pretending to be transgender women—entering bathrooms to spy on or expose themselves to girls and women is one that, according to experts, has a no basis in reality. Nonetheless, that aspect of the ordinance was stricken from its final version.

Section 17-51(b) of the ordinance contained the provision and was removed from the version that passed."

Calling this "The Bathroom Bill" as Starnes does is entirely inaccurate and misleading, if not an outright lie.

I find this move by the mayor to be most alarming but Starnes isn't telling the full story. This isn't the first time he has played fast and loose with the facts in his articles.

Hold up here.....so you don't like the writer but what about the subject? Why was such a crazy notion ever attempted? You say the mayor's actions are "alarming"....all that stopped males from entering women's bathrooms was if they were "transgender" or not? If it was stripped from the bill, it's because of the public outrage to it. That's some kinda bizarre....are these the same "experts" who say teenage boys wouldn't try to sneak a peek in there, the ones still trying to claim we are warming the planet? Studies done by homos trying to downplay or explain away the various perversions and pedophilia amongst them are a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously. And maybe you can tell me why some loser who believes if they change their junk they will somehow be happier, should get any consideration under the law? We are not obligated to change normal lifestyles to accommodate these freaks...and the more the envelope is pushed, the harder the reaction is going to be.

I already expressed by views concerning the subject of the OP. The actions of the mayor's office concerning the subpoenaing of sermons is what I find troubling and more then likely will get squashed by courts.

And yes, It was stripped from the bill because the public didn't want it in the bill. I wonder why the author failed to report in that in his article?

I can't answer your questions accurately because I do not know enough about the transgender community to give you an informed answer. It would be foolish of me to speak to their mindset because I do not know their mindset. You would have to ask some with more knowledge on the subject.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Calling this "The Bathroom Bill" as Starnes does is entirely inaccurate and misleading, if not an outright lie.

I find this move by the mayor to be most alarming but Starnes isn't telling the full story. This isn't the first time he has played fast and loose with the facts in his articles.

You're not telling the full story.

1.) The language was in the bill. This shows intent to push that nonsense onto the public via force of law.
2.) The provision was pulled from the bill, not because it was crazy, but because it wasn't CRAZY ENOUGH.

FYI, here's the full text of Section 17-51 (b)

(b) It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity. It shall be a defense to prosecution for discrimination on the basis of gender identity under this article, however, if the defendant had a good faith belief that the gender or gender identity of the person discriminated against was not consistent with the gender designation of the facility.​

The problematic section I underlined and put in bold print is why the Houston transgender community and our allies after consulting with us asked to have it pulled. Leaving that as is would have allowed transphobes to engage in gender policing and we would have no recourse to it.​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Will the DOJ issue a warrant for the arrest of Parker on Federal Civil Rights violations? Just as were used against mayors who harassed black pastors in the past?

 

[Rikurzhen]

And yes, It was stripped from the bill because the public didn't want it in the bill. I wonder why the author failed to report in that in his article?

That's really torturing the definition of "public." It was pulled at the request of the LGBTQHFUOTYOJSHOTRT movement. Sure, they're part of the public and their concern was heard, but the concerns of normal people were being ignored.

 

[mdk]

Calling this "The Bathroom Bill" as Starnes does is entirely inaccurate and misleading, if not an outright lie.

I find this move by the mayor to be most alarming but Starnes isn't telling the full story. This isn't the first time he has played fast and loose with the facts in his articles.

You're not telling the full story.

1.) The language was in the bill. This shows intent to push that nonsense onto the public via force of law.
2.) The provision was pulled from the bill, not because it was crazy, but because it wasn't CRAZY ENOUGH.

FYI, here's the full text of Section 17-51 (b)

(b) It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity. It shall be a defense to prosecution for discrimination on the basis of gender identity under this article, however, if the defendant had a good faith belief that the gender or gender identity of the person discriminated against was not consistent with the gender designation of the facility.​

The problematic section I underlined and put in bold print is why the Houston transgender community and our allies after consulting with us asked to have it pulled. Leaving that as is would have allowed transphobes to engage in gender policing and we would have no recourse to it.​

So you agree that calling it "The Bathroom Bill" is utter hogwash then?

That is the veiw of single blogger mentioned in the article I posted. The article also stated the transgender community was upset about the language being removed from the bill. There were protests in front of the courthouse with loads of people calling for the removal of the language. Either way, the language was removed from the bill.

 

[mdk]

And yes, It was stripped from the bill because the public didn't want it in the bill. I wonder why the author failed to report in that in his article?

That's really torturing the definition of "public." It was pulled at the request of the LGBTQHFUOTYOJSHOTRT movement. Sure, they're part of the public and their concern was heard, but the concerns of normal people were being ignored.

If that fits your narrative then by all means run with it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

So you agree that calling it "The Bathroom Bill" is utter hogwash then?

It's no more hogwash than homosexuals conjuring up the name "gay" to describe themselves or liberals conjuring up the name "Star Wars" to describe Reagan's anti-satellite programs or liberals conjuring up the name "Civil Rights" to describe a set of laws focused on stripping people of their human rights.

 

[mdk]

So you agree that calling it "The Bathroom Bill" is utter hogwash then?

It's no more hogwash than homosexuals conjuring up the name "gay" to describe themselves or liberals conjuring up the name "Star Wars" to describe Reagan's anti-satellite programs or liberals conjuring up the name "Civil Rights" to describe a set of laws focused on stripping people of their human rights.

Cool deflections. None of that changes the fact that Starnes' article is inaccurate. "The Bathroom Bill" that doesn't doesn't even address bathrooms in the bill. Starnes is playing fast and loose with the facts. This isn't about left vs.right, or D vs. R. It's about honesty and integrity.

 

[BullKurtz]

I already expressed by views concerning the subject of the OP. The actions of the mayor's office concerning the subpoenaing of sermons is what I find troubling and more then likely will get squashed by courts.

And yes, It was stripped from the bill because the public didn't want it in the bill. I wonder why the author failed to report in that in his article?

I can't answer your questions accurately because I do not know enough about the transgender community to give you an informed answer. It would be foolish of me to speak to their mindset because I do not know their mindset. You would have to ask some with more knowledge on the subject.

Fair enough and I appreciate not being called names because we butted heads. I believe the gist of Starnes piece was that this lesbian assembled a city council that would give her the power to push her sick agenda, the public be damned. Usually stuff like this gets ignored....folks are working and trying to raise a family or finish supporting one, so they let this kind of thing slide. But give women the need to protect their daughters from some perv in a rest room or tell a preacher his sermon must be approved by the thought-police, and there's gonna be all HELL to pay.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This is left wing dichotomy biting itself in the ass. Black churches opposed to homos and homos trying to force their way onto all churches. And democrats try to pander to both. Really shoots that fallacious analogy of homo marriage and civil rights in the foot.

 

[Katzndogz]

They should call it the Norman Bates bill.

 

[mdk]

I already expressed by views concerning the subject of the OP. The actions of the mayor's office concerning the subpoenaing of sermons is what I find troubling and more then likely will get squashed by courts.

And yes, It was stripped from the bill because the public didn't want it in the bill. I wonder why the author failed to report in that in his article?

I can't answer your questions accurately because I do not know enough about the transgender community to give you an informed answer. It would be foolish of me to speak to their mindset because I do not know their mindset. You would have to ask some with more knowledge on the subject.

Fair enough and I appreciate not being called names because we butted heads. I believe the gist of Starnes piece was that this lesbian assembled a city council that would give her the power to push her sick agenda, the public be damned. Usually stuff like this gets ignored....folks are working and trying to raise a family or finish supporting one, so they let this kind of thing slide. But give women the need to protect their daughters from some perv in a rest room or tell a preacher his sermon must be approved by the thought-police, and there's gonna be all HELL to pay.

We may disagree from time to time, perhaps even oftentimes, but I try terribly hard to never resort to personal insults and name calling. It has no place in civil discourse. I'll attack a post with passionate rigor but I try to never attack the poster.

I am entirely opposed to subpoenas being issued and the courts will more then likley squash this overreach by the mayor's office. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If that lady is wanting any respect, stripping people of their rights isn't going to get her that respect any sooner or ever even.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Picaro]

Another example of militant, atheist queers attacking Christianity. This woman has no respect for the religious protection from government clearly stated in our Constitution. She feels the separation of church and state is one-sided in favor of the state. And she's demanding pastors and ministers stop saying anything that conflicts with her own sick view of sexuality and morality....read it for yourself....this is what the "progressives" have in store for us all. This isn't New York or Massachusetts...this is HOUSTON!

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons Fox News

Dyke mayor Annise Parker

I haven't read the story, just the headlines. This is a statewide election cycle here in Texas. I'm betting these pastors' churches will magically be in precincts with close margins in local elections, probably minority and/or working class precincts, and this sociopath and her cronies in the Houston Democratic machine are indulging in intimidation in an attempt to shut these pastors up in the weeks leading up to the November voting. There is no way these vermin think what they're doing is legal, but all they need is to intimidate them into shutting up for a couple of weeks or so until the voting is closed. They know these pastors speaking out against Infanticide Barbie, the 'Gay Marriage' hoax, and the other nonsense will at the least lower turnout, even if these pastors' congregations would never vote Republican, and they are pulling dirty tricks to keep them from reducing turnout for their straight ticket Party voters and lowering the vote for their allied Machine hacks in those Wards and precincts in Houston..

 

[asaratis]

Stupid pricks worry about Christian preachers sermons against homosexuality...and ignore the goddamned radical Muslims preaching about jihad and inciting hatred for "infidels"? What the fuck is the world coming to?

 

[whitehall]

The Feds are all over the place trying to make a racial issue out of voter I.D. laws but when they get a real discrimination case and a violation of the 1st Amendment on two issues ...alas they are nowhere to be found.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Another example of liberal tolerance.

another example of faggotry