RE: Election Results - Houston Texas "Maybe I'm Old Fashioned?"

[emilynghiem]

Either I'm Old Fashioned, or dazed out of my mind from working two days without sleep.
But here is my response to the results of Voting Day in Houston, TX:
=============================================================
(A) RE: "Some Houston residents who say they voted Tuesday in favor of a proposal to grant nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people raised employment issues.

Kade Smith says it's about time that all U.S. cities have an anti-discrimination policy. Smith says it's very easy for employers — especially in Texas, which is a right-to-work state — to fire someone for anything.

A right-to-work state means a person cannot be denied employment because of membership or non-membership in a labor union or other labor group.

Another voter, Willy Golden, says he thinks we need some regulations to help working people."

===> YEAH, it's called NOT WORKING FOR JERKS.

As much as Democrats fight for "freedom of choice" why not USE it, and CHOOSE NOT to work for abusive employers. Go work for people and invest in companies with COMPATIBLE social and environmental ethics.

(B) RE: "No one's rights should be subject to a popular vote" -- from fellow Democrat Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston, at the failure of her well-funded overreaching HERO "equal rights" ordinance

Well, what about free choice to pay for health care without being penalized by govt?
What do you call "dictating by majority vote" how much each citizen should pay for insurance, or be fined without it -- if our choices how to pay for health care don't meet BELIEFS in govt regulations and exemptions?

Why is it okay to DICTATE our rights and choices by "popular vote" of CONGRESS.
Isn't that worse?
Staking our rights on the vote of the elite, who aren't affected by the insurance mandates,
instead of the votes of people actually AFFECTED by the outcome?

(C) In general, and I've asked this OVER and OVER:

Why is it okay to abuse govt to impose SECULAR BELIEFS by "majority rule"
when it comes to BELIEFS about marriage, homosexuality or health care?

But when you are on the losing side of that vote, suddenly it's NOT okay to trample on the beliefs of others?

And in THAT case we should "separate church and state"
But NOT if you are on the winning side? then it's OKAY to impose your RELIGION on others?
As long as you are the oppressor and not the oppressed?
Then it's okay?

Are we even now?
Is the point of this game for the Left to be just as hypocritical as the Right they criticize for the same?

Are we done now?

If there is some other point to this exercise,
can you explain it again. I must have missed something.
Or maybe I'm just Old Fashioned. Or Old and too hard headed to get this. Sorry!)

--- from a very disillusioned and distraught Democrat, who just watched millions of citizens and dollars wasted to lobby back and forth on BOTH sides of a poorly written "HERO" ordinance that finally lost (after wasting untold private and public funds on legal costs of litigation and lobbying)

While Houston has "NO MONEY" TO SAVE THREE NATIONAL HISTORIC ENDANGERED SITES IN HOUSTON -- THE ASTRODOME AND THE FREEDMEN'S TOWN LANDMARKS.

But our Mayor collects, campaigns and wastes millions of dollars on a battle over BELIEFS.
Why can't we use that money to save our cities and rebuild our communities?

Another point I just don't get. Maybe I'm just too old or too tired. Someone please explain!

Or should I ask SYLVESTOR TURNER and BEN HALL, two Black Democrats who organized plenty of resources to run against each other, and a dozen other candidates, for the same office. Why not raise that capital to create jobs for ALL the candidates to work out ALL their plans for govt?

Never mind. Maybe I'm just not getting enough sleep....

 

[guno]

Either I'm Old Fashioned, or dazed out of my mind from working two days without sleep.
But here is my response to the results of Voting Day in Houston, TX:
=============================================================
(A) RE: "Some Houston residents who say they voted Tuesday in favor of a proposal to grant nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people raised employment issues.

Kade Smith says it's about time that all U.S. cities have an anti-discrimination policy. Smith says it's very easy for employers — especially in Texas, which is a right-to-work state — to fire someone for anything.

A right-to-work state means a person cannot be denied employment because of membership or non-membership in a labor union or other labor group.

Another voter, Willy Golden, says he thinks we need some regulations to help working people."

===> YEAH, it's called NOT WORKING FOR JERKS.

As much as Democrats fight for "freedom of choice" why not USE it, and CHOOSE NOT to work for abusive employers. Go work for people and invest in companies with COMPATIBLE social and environmental ethics.

(B) RE: "No one's rights should be subject to a popular vote" -- from fellow Democrat Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston, at the failure of her well-funded overreaching HERO "equal rights" ordinance

Well, what about free choice to pay for health care without being penalized by govt?
What do you call "dictating by majority vote" how much each citizen should pay for insurance, or be fined without it -- if our choices how to pay for health care don't meet BELIEFS in govt regulations and exemptions?

Why is it okay to DICTATE our rights and choices by "popular vote" of CONGRESS.
Isn't that worse?
Staking our rights on the vote of the elite, who aren't affected by the insurance mandates,
instead of the votes of people actually AFFECTED by the outcome?

(C) In general, and I've asked this OVER and OVER:

Why is it okay to abuse govt to impose SECULAR BELIEFS by "majority rule"
when it comes to BELIEFS about marriage, homosexuality or health care?

But when you are on the losing side of that vote, suddenly it's NOT okay to trample on the beliefs of others?

And in THAT case we should "separate church and state"
But NOT if you are on the winning side? then it's OKAY to impose your RELIGION on others?
As long as you are the oppressor and not the oppressed?
Then it's okay?

Are we even now?
Is the point of this game for the Left to be just as hypocritical as the Right they criticize for the same?

Are we done now?

If there is some other point to this exercise,
can you explain it again. I must have missed something.
Or maybe I'm just Old Fashioned. Or Old and too hard headed to get this. Sorry!)

--- from a very disillusioned and distraught Democrat, who just watched millions of citizens and dollars wasted to lobby back and forth on BOTH sides of a poorly written "HERO" ordinance that finally lost (after wasting untold private and public funds on legal costs of litigation and lobbying)

While Houston has "NO MONEY" TO SAVE THREE NATIONAL HISTORIC ENDANGERED SITES IN HOUSTON -- THE ASTRODOME AND THE FREEDMEN'S TOWN LANDMARKS.

But our Mayor collects, campaigns and wastes millions of dollars on a battle over BELIEFS.
Why can't we use that money to save our cities and rebuild our communities?

Another point I just don't get. Maybe I'm just too old or too tired. Someone please explain!

Or should I ask SYLVESTOR TURNER and BEN HALL, two Black Democrats who organized plenty of resources to run against each other, and a dozen other candidates, for the same office. Why not raise that capital to create jobs for ALL the candidates to work out ALL their plans for govt?

Never mind. Maybe I'm just not getting enough sleep....

I agree the money spent battling this was a waste of time and money and does nothing to address or focus on real issues

It is only a matter of time, 5 years ago who would have thought that the majority of Americans would support Gay marriage to begin with? Now gays are accepted in the military and society and they can marry, and in another few years some of the regressives will be gone and the demographic shift will be further a long. Just a matter of time as it always has been. I see some great changes coming for this country

 

[ScienceRocks]

The only change I want to see is a more pro-science and pro-mars atmosphere to develop in this country. We'd all be better off.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is only a matter of time, 5 years ago who would have thought that the majority of Americans would support Gay marriage to begin with? Now gays are accepted in the military and society and they can marry, and in another few years some of the regressives will be gone and the demographic shift will be further a long. Just a matter of time as it always has been. I see some great changes coming for this country

You're surely looking forward to some time in the future, when you hope that abominations such as HERO will be allowed to stand, and you'll be able to go into women's restrooms and locker rooms with impunity, and have “hate crime” charges brought against anyone who dares to call you a pervert.

Don't get your hopes up, birdcrap. The pervert-rights movement is about to hit a wall. Common Americans were going to tolerate almost any degree of sickness and perversion, as long as they thought they wouldn't be affected by it. When decent people started having the force of law abused against them for refusing to participate in sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, that was a line that your side should have never crossed, should have never even approached. And now you want us to be OK with our wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, and other female acquaintances being compelled to share dressing and restroom facilities with male perverts. You sick perverts were much better off when you kept low and stayed off the public's radar. You may have gained some support when you cried “Don't force your morality on me!”, but now that you're openly trying to force your immorality on others, you're going to lose all the sympathy and support that you've spent the last few decades fighting to gain.

 

[Katzndogz]

These changes, both existing and hoped for, have all happened before. The cultures that have accepted and normalized perversion all made it to dust bin of history. The perversion never survived.