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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that you yourself pithily (and incorrectly) invoke the concept of the application of 'separate but equal'. Now you dont want any legal explanation when explained that the underlying principles behind your pithy comment dont apply.... Then you seem to think that the invocation of a right that somewhere somehow exists to explain your position shouldnt have the legal basis questioned, nor should the legal theory of your misapplied pithy quote be explored.

Please do tell, what *can* we talk about since you have foreclosed just about everything except broadly asserted 'rights that might be' (which you apparently think 'should be') and pithy characterizations of inapplicable principles?

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

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Really? You may wish to check this stance. This is not the case in the slightest. Property rights and the right to assemble are two somewhat massive contradictions to your sweeping assertion there.

Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past'. I am sorry if you overlook them or ignore them.

Ignoring those facts, and to advance the discussion, please do tell where unequivocally

Quote:"a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there"

is or is derived from? Or are you just pulling this out of thin air of what *you* feel should be all and good with the world?

Responding to your edit - I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law. I was offering a layman’s interpretation of our rather layman’s conversation. Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t offer opinions like that and I had to stick to strict constitutional interpretation and justification.

Looks like I’ll never utter the phrase your rights stop, where my rights start...

Great --- layperson's view then. Where and how is one person's right to be somewhere invariably trump another person's right to bar them entry? In the general sense.

The problem with saying it in the 'general sense' is that by definition to be as broad as you have formulated, you literally have to define away private property rights and the right to assemble.

So in a 'general sense' please explain how a normal store owner must, at all times and under all conditions, be required to never ask anyone from his store. That is your assertion. The floor is yours for this explanation, sans *any* legal theories -- fair?

No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the third time, yes I did answer it. I even bolded it in the post you quoted when you asked me a second time...

And yes, I don't want to be confused by facts. I am fine with fact, which is why I posted the link to HERO's actual text, to show that both you and I were completely incorrect about a specific provision covering bathroom access. Contrary to what you said in Post #155, there was no bathroom provision inserted into HERO to provoke a reaction.

(06-11-2018 10:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that you yourself pithily (and incorrectly) invoke the concept of the application of 'separate but equal'. Now you dont want any legal explanation when explained that the underlying principles behind your pithy comment dont apply.... Then you seem to think that the invocation of a right that somewhere somehow exists to explain your position shouldnt have the legal basis questioned, nor should the legal theory of your misapplied pithy quote be explored.

Please do tell, what *can* we talk about since you have foreclosed just about everything except broadly asserted 'rights that might be' (which you apparently think 'should be') and pithy characterizations of inapplicable principles?

I don't know Tanq, do I really NOT want any legal explanations? In post #155 I asked for you to explain more because I wasn't following, and I only got pithy with you when you asked if I was pulling my response out of thin air...

One issue seems to be that when I think I'm obviously speaking in generalities, which are not meant to be absolutes, it gets taken to be an absolute. Or another poster and I are speaking in obvious laymen's terms (when have you ever seen a right to be comfortable in a bathroom spelled out?), and we then get wrapped into a technical debate. And when that happens, everything goes to hell in a hand basket. It results in you making statements for me I didn't make, or extrapolating my positions out further then they are intended to go - I mean, just look at how you suggested I was calling Lance evil earlier (I never did see a response to that, by the way).

Another is that we're often communicating on two different levels. You obviously have more legal knowledge than I do, and if we were discussing how to win a court case, I'd sit down and take some notes. But since I feel like I maybe know enough about how our legal system works to offer opinions on legislation, I do feel like I can offer and defend my opinions about these topics. And the trouble comes in is the approaches we both take. I think you're taking the perspective of a practicing lawyer at almost all times when responding to me, when I'm taking the perspective of a mildly informed engineer who is not in your league. That means sometimes you're nitpicking my points, but mostly you're simply communicating on a different plane that is a bit too advanced for me. And I'll either misunderstand or completely whiff on what you're talking about, and then you'll take my responses as if I'm a well-versed legal scholar and fly off the rails.

And heck, this doesn't even address the fact that, very often we both talk past the other and miss/ignore something that other has said.

In short, I'll try and reduce the pith, but please stop assuming the worst about everything I say - I'm not a lawyer, just some dude with a keyboard who has a decent brain.

(06-11-2018 10:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Neither of those really address the specifics of my comment, which had to do with public accommodations and separate-but-equal type situations. Private property rights don’t exactly fit that bill...

Another example of you drawing conclusions far past the intended point of discussion.

Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past'. I am sorry if you overlook them or ignore them.

Ignoring those facts, and to advance the discussion, please do tell where unequivocally

Quote:"a person's right to be somewhere trumps the another persons right to not allow them to be there"

is or is derived from? Or are you just pulling this out of thin air of what *you* feel should be all and good with the world?

Responding to your edit - I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law. I was offering a layman’s interpretation of our rather layman’s conversation. Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t offer opinions like that and I had to stick to strict constitutional interpretation and justification.

Looks like I’ll never utter the phrase your rights stop, where my rights start...

Great --- layperson's view then. Where and how is one person's right to be somewhere invariably trump another person's right to bar them entry? In the general sense.

The problem with saying it in the 'general sense' is that by definition to be as broad as you have formulated, you literally have to define away private property rights and the right to assemble.

So in a 'general sense' please explain how a normal store owner must, at all times and under all conditions, be required to never ask anyone from his store. That is your assertion. The floor is yours for this explanation, sans *any* legal theories -- fair?

No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

You assume that a "a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification". Sure they can. It is stupid as hell, but I can tell someone, anyone, to get the hell out of the store. The only time you cannot is if there is 'improper discrimination' (i.e. discrimination based on a suspect class).

But a store owner (or any property owner, for that matter --- see how this is an important issue?) typically has an unambiguous right to ask anyone, at anytime, to leave, for any reason. As long as there is no discriminatory intent vis a vis a suspect class. There is no 'inherent right to stay' in that situation. And, the reason in your example is firmly rooted in property law (again). There is a reason *why* I brought those topics up, mind you....

Think of all those signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." They typically arent posted simply to broadcast how ornery the person is. When it deals with purely private property, the right to tell anyone, anytime, anyhow to get the hell out of your property is even stronger. Think of the contra-case -- if that wasnt the case I could not tell a burglar to leave my home, nor an office.

I think that you have the polarity of the right you state pretty much reversed, tbh.

(06-11-2018 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Private property rights and the right to assemble are fundamentally central to both issues. And central to to tug of war that invariably has to happen within any discrimination realm.

There hasnt been a discrimination case in 70 years that hasnt grappled with one or both of these subjects. So cut the 'example of you drawing conclusions far past'; if so then SCOTUS has engaged in nothing but 'drawing conclusions far past'. I am sorry if you overlook them or ignore them.

Ignoring those facts, and to advance the discussion, please do tell where unequivocally is or is derived from? Or are you just pulling this out of thin air of what *you* feel should be all and good with the world?

Responding to your edit - I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law. I was offering a layman’s interpretation of our rather layman’s conversation. Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t offer opinions like that and I had to stick to strict constitutional interpretation and justification.

Looks like I’ll never utter the phrase your rights stop, where my rights start...

Great --- layperson's view then. Where and how is one person's right to be somewhere invariably trump another person's right to bar them entry? In the general sense.

The problem with saying it in the 'general sense' is that by definition to be as broad as you have formulated, you literally have to define away private property rights and the right to assemble.

So in a 'general sense' please explain how a normal store owner must, at all times and under all conditions, be required to never ask anyone from his store. That is your assertion. The floor is yours for this explanation, sans *any* legal theories -- fair?

No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

I think you are touching on the concept of negative and positive rights. You assume that a "a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification". Sure they can. It is stupid as hell, but I can tell someone, anyone, to get the hell out of the store. The only time you cannot is if there is 'improper discrimination' (i.e. discrimination based on a suspect class).

But a store owner has an unambiguous right to ask anyone, at anytime, to leave. As long as there is no discriminatory intent vis a vis a suspect class.

Gotcha - that makes sense that, so long as the rationale is not with respect to a protected class, it's protected.

So if we move to a public setting, so a public park, we hit a wall, right? If there are two people and person A wants person B to leave, regardless of protective status, person A can go shove it?

(06-11-2018 11:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the third time, yes I did answer it. I even bolded it in the post you quoted when you asked me a second time...
And yes, I don't want to be confused by facts. I am fine with fact, which is why I posted the link to HERO's actual text, to show that both you and I were completely incorrect about a specific provision covering bathroom access. Contrary to what you said in Post #155, there was no bathroom provision inserted into HERO to provoke a reaction.

I'm sorry, but your "answer" was more an attempt to deflect than an actual answer to the question. But that's fine, I get a pretty good idea were you are coming from.

This is my problem with a lot of the gay rights movement. I have a number of gay friends and am generally supportive. But when you try to analyze an issue from a perspective where only the rights of LGBT persons matter, I disagree. And that weighing of the equities never gets discussed by the pro-LGBT side.

This is a legal matter, so yes the law does matter. And while you seem to think that there has to be some explicit bathroom language in order for HERO to apply to bathrooms, you've had several experienced lawyers tell you otherwise. The bill was drafted wit sufficiently imprecise language to create an application to the bathroom issue. It certainly could have been drafted wit cleaner, tighter language that made it clear that bathrooms were not included in its scope. That didn't happen.

And post #155 was not mine.

(06-11-2018 11:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

(06-11-2018 10:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, this is a legal matter, so that's kind of what you have to talk about.

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

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

For the third time, yes I did answer it. I even bolded it in the post you quoted when you asked me a second time...
And yes, I don't want to be confused by facts. I am fine with fact, which is why I posted the link to HERO's actual text, to show that both you and I were completely incorrect about a specific provision covering bathroom access. Contrary to what you said in Post #155, there was no bathroom provision inserted into HERO to provoke a reaction.

I'm sorry, but your "answer" was more an attempt to deflect than an actual answer to the question. But that's fine, I get a pretty good idea were you are coming from.

This is my problem with a lot of the gay rights movement. I have a number of gay friends and am generally supportive. But when you try to analyze an issue from a perspective where only the rights of LGBT persons matter, I disagree. And that weighing of the equities never gets discussed by the pro-LGBT side.

This is a legal matter, so yes the law does matter. And while you seem to think that there has to be some explicit bathroom language in order for HERO to apply to bathrooms, you've had several experienced lawyers tell you otherwise. The bill was drafted wit sufficiently imprecise language to create an application to the bathroom issue. It certainly could have been drafted wit cleaner, tighter language that made it clear that bathrooms were not included in its scope. That didn't happen.

And post #155 was not mine.

Typo - post #115.

And sorry you think it’s a deflection, I certainly felt like it was an honest attempt to explain whose rights “won” in that situation and why. Not sure why you think it’s a deflection...

And again, I do NOT think there has to be specific language in order for HERO to be applied to bathrooms. Please do not put words into my mouth when I have explicitly addressed the issue again, and again. Seriously, what the hell? How many times do I have to respond to this? Talk about having your mind made up...

Just like your post #115, I mistakenly thought there was specific language based on all of the opposition. You now have the hindsight to be able to make an argument about the sufficiently broad use of language causing the problem that resulted in the opposition, but even you thought there was a specific provision that was related to transgender bathroom use.

(06-11-2018 11:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(06-11-2018 09:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Responding to your edit - I wasn’t talking about case law or what legal theories were use during to develop law. I was offering a layman’s interpretation of our rather layman’s conversation. Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t offer opinions like that and I had to stick to strict constitutional interpretation and justification.

Looks like I’ll never utter the phrase your rights stop, where my rights start...

Great --- layperson's view then. Where and how is one person's right to be somewhere invariably trump another person's right to bar them entry? In the general sense.

The problem with saying it in the 'general sense' is that by definition to be as broad as you have formulated, you literally have to define away private property rights and the right to assemble.

So in a 'general sense' please explain how a normal store owner must, at all times and under all conditions, be required to never ask anyone from his store. That is your assertion. The floor is yours for this explanation, sans *any* legal theories -- fair?

No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

I think you are touching on the concept of negative and positive rights. You assume that a "a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification". Sure they can. It is stupid as hell, but I can tell someone, anyone, to get the hell out of the store. The only time you cannot is if there is 'improper discrimination' (i.e. discrimination based on a suspect class).

But a store owner has an unambiguous right to ask anyone, at anytime, to leave. As long as there is no discriminatory intent vis a vis a suspect class.

Gotcha - that makes sense that, so long as the rationale is not with respect to a protected class, it's protected.

So if we move to a public setting, so a public park, we hit a wall, right? If there are two people and person A wants person B to leave, regardless of protective status, person A can go shove it?

Correct. And, person A still has every 'right' to ask person B to leave. There is no overriding 'rights' issues, there simply are no 'space rights'.

But remember, the park still has an 'owner' that can assert rights -- the government.
As to rights between 'visitors' there are typically no predefined rights unless there has been a license by the ultimate owner, the government, in favor of one of the parties.

As an example -- a public park has portions that have seats and chairs and installed grills; or a national park has campsites. One can take a license from the government to use that spot -- signing up for the grill site for a birthday party or signing up for a campsite at Yellowstone are examples, having a permit to have a demonstration in a park, or having a prayer-in in Seattle are other examples.

If the 'signing up' camper at Yellowstone person shows up and finds the campsite occupied, he does have the right to tell the other person to leave. So the answer to your question is generally that is correct for public spaces, there are broad exceptions.

But considering that for the purposes of our discussion that the locus of the interest is Houston (the ordinance covered Houston), for a massive majority of space in Houston no right like you describe really exists, the majority of Houston being private property subject to the concept of property rights superceding any such 'right of previous occupancy'. That is why the concept of private property rights is the 8000 pound gorilla in the the issue, and specifically why my bringing it up is not (imo) 'expanding the the argument to infinity'.

(06-11-2018 11:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that you yourself pithily (and incorrectly) invoke the concept of the application of 'separate but equal'. Now you dont want any legal explanation when explained that the underlying principles behind your pithy comment dont apply.... Then you seem to think that the invocation of a right that somewhere somehow exists to explain your position shouldnt have the legal basis questioned, nor should the legal theory of your misapplied pithy quote be explored.

Please do tell, what *can* we talk about since you have foreclosed just about everything except broadly asserted 'rights that might be' (which you apparently think 'should be') and pithy characterizations of inapplicable principles?

I don't know Tanq, do I really NOT want any legal explanations? In post #155 I asked for you to explain more because I wasn't following, and I only got pithy with you when you asked if I was pulling my response out of thin air...

One issue seems to be that when I think I'm obviously speaking in generalities, which are not meant to be absolutes, it gets taken to be an absolute. Or another poster and I are speaking in obvious laymen's terms (when have you ever seen a right to be comfortable in a bathroom spelled out?), and we then get wrapped into a technical debate. And when that happens, everything goes to hell in a hand basket. It results in you making statements for me I didn't make, or extrapolating my positions out further then they are intended to go - I mean, just look at how you suggested I was calling Lance evil earlier (I never did see a response to that, by the way).

Another is that we're often communicating on two different levels. You obviously have more legal knowledge than I do, and if we were discussing how to win a court case, I'd sit down and take some notes. But since I feel like I maybe know enough about how our legal system works to offer opinions on legislation, I do feel like I can offer and defend my opinions about these topics. And the trouble comes in is the approaches we both take. I think you're taking the perspective of a practicing lawyer at almost all times when responding to me, when I'm taking the perspective of a mildly informed engineer who is not in your league. That means sometimes you're nitpicking my points, but mostly you're simply communicating on a different plane that is a bit too advanced for me. And I'll either misunderstand or completely whiff on what you're talking about, and then you'll take my responses as if I'm a well-versed legal scholar and fly off the rails.

And heck, this doesn't even address the fact that, very often we both talk past the other and miss/ignore something that other has said.

In short, I'll try and reduce the pith, but please stop assuming the worst about everything I say - I'm not a lawyer, just some dude with a keyboard who has a decent brain.

No need to reduce pith, just be open to having the pith shown not to be the case if that is fact the case.

And yes, I do extrapolate. If someone can defend the extrapolation, they will typically have a good argument as a basis. If they cannot, typically the extrapolation shows that the original thesis is not an absolute, and somewhere, somehow, there is a mental gear shift that should be explored. Sometimes the gear shift is justified, sometimes it points out a hole in the thought process.

For example, I am typically against gun control measures and specifically against the banning of AR-15s. Yet at the same time the banning of fully automatic weapons is something I view positively. In short, there is a severe mental gear shift between banning/regulating ARs and banning regulating SAW (squad automatic weapons) that, as a proponent of one and an opponent of another I need to justify to be comfortable in a belief system. Extrapolation is a tool to do that.

(06-12-2018 08:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Great --- layperson's view then. Where and how is one person's right to be somewhere invariably trump another person's right to bar them entry? In the general sense.

The problem with saying it in the 'general sense' is that by definition to be as broad as you have formulated, you literally have to define away private property rights and the right to assemble.

So in a 'general sense' please explain how a normal store owner must, at all times and under all conditions, be required to never ask anyone from his store. That is your assertion. The floor is yours for this explanation, sans *any* legal theories -- fair?

No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

I think you are touching on the concept of negative and positive rights. You assume that a "a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification". Sure they can. It is stupid as hell, but I can tell someone, anyone, to get the hell out of the store. The only time you cannot is if there is 'improper discrimination' (i.e. discrimination based on a suspect class).

But a store owner has an unambiguous right to ask anyone, at anytime, to leave. As long as there is no discriminatory intent vis a vis a suspect class.

Gotcha - that makes sense that, so long as the rationale is not with respect to a protected class, it's protected.

So if we move to a public setting, so a public park, we hit a wall, right? If there are two people and person A wants person B to leave, regardless of protective status, person A can go shove it?

Correct. And, person A still has every 'right' to ask person B to leave. There is no overriding 'rights' issues, there simply are no 'space rights'.

But remember, the park still has an 'owner' that can assert rights -- the government.
As to rights between 'visitors' there are typically no predefined rights unless there has been a license by the ultimate owner, the government, in favor of one of the parties.

As an example -- a public park has portions that have seats and chairs and installed grills; or a national park has campsites. One can take a license from the government to use that spot -- signing up for the grill site for a birthday party or signing up for a campsite at Yellowstone are examples, having a permit to have a demonstration in a park, or having a prayer-in in Seattle are other examples.

If the 'signing up' camper at Yellowstone person shows up and finds the campsite occupied, he does have the right to tell the other person to leave. So the answer to your question is generally that is correct for public spaces, there are broad exceptions.

But considering that for the purposes of our discussion that the locus of the interest is Houston (the ordinance covered Houston), for a massive majority of space in Houston no right like you describe really exists, the majority of Houston being private property subject to the concept of property rights superceding any such 'right of previous occupancy'. That is why the concept of private property rights is the 8000 pound gorilla in the the issue, and specifically why my bringing it up is not (imo) 'expanding the the argument to infinity'.

I see what your saying. And in regards to the Houston discussion, a lot of the conversation focused on the hypothetical two people in a restroom, with no mention of an owner.

So in that case, two people who aren't owners of a business meet in a restroom. Person A feels uncomfortable with the Person B's presence. Unless the owner gets involved, Person B has to deal with the presence of Person A, until they get the owner involved. At that point, without HERO, Person B could convince the owner to kick out Person A for any cause, with HERO it would require a non-gender based reason, and if SB-3 passes, it would require the owner to check some form of documentation if gender was in question.

It seems now like we were talking about the rights of different people - I was primarily focused more on the rights of A and B, and it looks like you were saying that B isn't really in play, that it's really A and owner.

(06-12-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 08:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

I think you are touching on the concept of negative and positive rights. You assume that a "a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification". Sure they can. It is stupid as hell, but I can tell someone, anyone, to get the hell out of the store. The only time you cannot is if there is 'improper discrimination' (i.e. discrimination based on a suspect class).

But a store owner has an unambiguous right to ask anyone, at anytime, to leave. As long as there is no discriminatory intent vis a vis a suspect class.

Gotcha - that makes sense that, so long as the rationale is not with respect to a protected class, it's protected.

So if we move to a public setting, so a public park, we hit a wall, right? If there are two people and person A wants person B to leave, regardless of protective status, person A can go shove it?

Correct. And, person A still has every 'right' to ask person B to leave. There is no overriding 'rights' issues, there simply are no 'space rights'.

But remember, the park still has an 'owner' that can assert rights -- the government.
As to rights between 'visitors' there are typically no predefined rights unless there has been a license by the ultimate owner, the government, in favor of one of the parties.

As an example -- a public park has portions that have seats and chairs and installed grills; or a national park has campsites. One can take a license from the government to use that spot -- signing up for the grill site for a birthday party or signing up for a campsite at Yellowstone are examples, having a permit to have a demonstration in a park, or having a prayer-in in Seattle are other examples.

If the 'signing up' camper at Yellowstone person shows up and finds the campsite occupied, he does have the right to tell the other person to leave. So the answer to your question is generally that is correct for public spaces, there are broad exceptions.

But considering that for the purposes of our discussion that the locus of the interest is Houston (the ordinance covered Houston), for a massive majority of space in Houston no right like you describe really exists, the majority of Houston being private property subject to the concept of property rights superceding any such 'right of previous occupancy'. That is why the concept of private property rights is the 8000 pound gorilla in the the issue, and specifically why my bringing it up is not (imo) 'expanding the the argument to infinity'.

I see what your saying. And in regards to the Houston discussion, a lot of the conversation focused on the hypothetical two people in a restroom, with no mention of an owner.

So in that case, two people who aren't owners of a business meet in a restroom. Person A feels uncomfortable with the Person B's presence. Unless the owner gets involved, Person B has to deal with the presence of Person A, until they get the owner involved. At that point, without HERO, Person B could convince the owner to kick out Person A for any cause, with HERO it would require a non-gender based reason, and if SB-3 passes, it would require the owner to check some form of documentation if gender was in question.

It seems now like we were talking about the rights of different people - I was primarily focused more on the rights of A and B, and it looks like you were saying that B isn't really in play, that it's really A and owner.

Yes. And you have to remember that many times the owner is the conduit through the person who feels uncomfortable passes the ire.

Lad, if you will be up for just a tad of turn here, and to be blunt this is *my* issue with bathroom bills. If I had a daughter, I would be somewhat fine with an accepted transgender using the women's restroom, but positively aghast not just with 'leery hairy biker guy' sharing that restroom, but urbane normal milquetoast accountant doing the same thing. That view is shared by many 'liberal' friends and acquaintances.

The Houston attempt to backdoor a bill was awful, because in that verbiage if *any* impediment was made to the right of person to use the restroom based on 'sex' or 'sexual identity' a liability comes up for the owner.

The first question is: is it a good bill that, when I restrict the dude in a raincoat and leering face from using the women's restroom that I face a prima facie liability for that (i.e I restricted a 'male' from using the facility, i.e. on the surface I restricted someone base on 'sex')

Second question: how do we 'preserve' the ability of the transgender to use a facility yet still restrict both or either 'Leering Raincoat Larry' *and* '20 year old dude who thinks it is cool and rad to use the chick's room'? How do we do that and still preserve the property owner from having to do constant 'he looks like a whatnot' tests?

As I noted, the Houston proposal basically made the regime of 'no tests whatsoever' the preferred embodiment, simply due to the vast broadness of its scope. Am I 'uninformed' for opposing a 'no tests whatsoever regime? Sorry, we are an enlightened society (supposedly) but that regime (if I had a daughter) would give me the fing creeps...

(06-12-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 08:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2018 10:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, that’s not my assertion, given that I would describe “general sense” as being closer to saying a typical situation as opposed to every situation. And the situations you’ve brought up, such a private club, are not really typical, but certainly valid.

And so to your last question, in a typical situation a person would enter a store with the intention to shop. In that typical situation, a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification, just because they’re feeling uncomfortable. If the situation is atypical, they are disorderly, they’re harassing others, they’re verbally threatening someone, etc, then they would seem to have justification to infringe upon the rights of the patron.

Or do you think I’m totally off the tracks in my line of thinking?

I think you are touching on the concept of negative and positive rights. You assume that a "a store owner can’t really just ask people to leave their store without justification". Sure they can. It is stupid as hell, but I can tell someone, anyone, to get the hell out of the store. The only time you cannot is if there is 'improper discrimination' (i.e. discrimination based on a suspect class).

But a store owner has an unambiguous right to ask anyone, at anytime, to leave. As long as there is no discriminatory intent vis a vis a suspect class.

Gotcha - that makes sense that, so long as the rationale is not with respect to a protected class, it's protected.

So if we move to a public setting, so a public park, we hit a wall, right? If there are two people and person A wants person B to leave, regardless of protective status, person A can go shove it?

Correct. And, person A still has every 'right' to ask person B to leave. There is no overriding 'rights' issues, there simply are no 'space rights'.

But remember, the park still has an 'owner' that can assert rights -- the government.
As to rights between 'visitors' there are typically no predefined rights unless there has been a license by the ultimate owner, the government, in favor of one of the parties.

As an example -- a public park has portions that have seats and chairs and installed grills; or a national park has campsites. One can take a license from the government to use that spot -- signing up for the grill site for a birthday party or signing up for a campsite at Yellowstone are examples, having a permit to have a demonstration in a park, or having a prayer-in in Seattle are other examples.

If the 'signing up' camper at Yellowstone person shows up and finds the campsite occupied, he does have the right to tell the other person to leave. So the answer to your question is generally that is correct for public spaces, there are broad exceptions.

But considering that for the purposes of our discussion that the locus of the interest is Houston (the ordinance covered Houston), for a massive majority of space in Houston no right like you describe really exists, the majority of Houston being private property subject to the concept of property rights superceding any such 'right of previous occupancy'. That is why the concept of private property rights is the 8000 pound gorilla in the the issue, and specifically why my bringing it up is not (imo) 'expanding the the argument to infinity'.

I see what your saying. And in regards to the Houston discussion, a lot of the conversation focused on the hypothetical two people in a restroom, with no mention of an owner.

So in that case, two people who aren't owners of a business meet in a restroom. Person A feels uncomfortable with the Person B's presence. Unless the owner gets involved, Person B has to deal with the presence of Person A, until they get the owner involved. At that point, without HERO, Person B could convince the owner to kick out Person A for any cause, with HERO it would require a non-gender based reason, and if SB-3 passes, it would require the owner to check some form of documentation if gender was in question.

It seems now like we were talking about the rights of different people - I was primarily focused more on the rights of A and B, and it looks like you were saying that B isn't really in play, that it's really A and owner.

The owner is who would be subject to liability for 'restricting' their restrooms based on sex.

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the sad thing is that I agree wholeheartedly with 99 per cent of the ordinance. Employment, housing, etc... Even the section on public accommodation I agree with to a great extent: no need to discriminate in selling goods based on 'sex' or 'sexual identity'.

Even the owners of Masterpiece Bakery (the supposed bad guys in the recent bakery/gay marriage cake case) did not discriminate on that basis -- they sold anything 'out of the store' to anyone who walked in, including people known to the owners be gay.

But the pubic accommodations section went way overbroad -- as I and Owl#s note that I think the overbroadness was intentional and designed to bring in a bathroom bill through the broad language. To me, that is just as duplicitous as Lance's participation in the campaign to sink the bill and provision.

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

or

Quote: But why does that wording have to be in a bill dealing with things like employment rights? I see no problem with an employment rights bill that did not include that provision.

I think the bathroom provision was inserted to provoke a reaction. I can see no other reason tout it in.

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

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

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

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

(06-12-2018 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

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

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

Actually the sad thing is that I agree wholeheartedly with 99 per cent of the ordinance. Employment, housing, etc... Even the section on public accommodation I agree with to a great extent: no need to discriminate in selling goods based on 'sex' or 'sexual identity'.

Even the owners of Masterpiece Bakery (the supposed bad guys in the recent bakery/gay marriage cake case) did not discriminate on that basis -- they sold anything 'out of the store' to anyone who walked in, including people known to the owners be gay.

But the pubic accommodations section went way overbroad -- as I and Owl#s note that I think the overbroadness was intentional and designed to bring in a bathroom bill through the broad language. To me, that is just as duplicitous as Lance's participation in the campaign to sink the bill and provision.

Can you take me through why you felt it went overboard? By overboard you mean overly vague? Are these types of bills generally parsed through with details of the exact types of venues that public accommodations refers to, such that there is no room for debate?

Reading the definitions of public accommodations in the Ordinance, it does seem broad, but to parse out each and every space seems like you start creating more issues because you then may have more gray areas. Do most of these types of ordinances define public ordinance in a broad manner and then provide examples of places that do not meet the criteria?

I have zero issue with a public accommodations bill that defined 'offering services and goods' as the act of non-discrimination as a first step; parse out the actions of the establishment from the physical setup of the establishment as first step.

Second, use a 'shall not bar entry' type follow-up.

With those two steps, you have defined that people who sell stuff (services included) cannot: a) bar the entry of people into their establishment based on discriminatory intent; and b) must provide their goods and services free of discriminatory intent.

This simply is akin to the 1964 Civil Rights Laws but with a much larger targeted class that cannot be discriminated against.

Instead, the Council promulgated this:

Quote:(a) It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee
or agent thereof to intentionally discriminate against any person on the basis of any
protected characteristic

So yes, the more I think about the 'right step' and a 'good target for' vis a vis discriminatory practices, this was absolutely designed to bring in the backdoor a bathroom bill, and by the subterfuge of being massively broad and vague.

I have typed out my concerns with a bathroom bill per se earlier. I would have no problem with a bathroom bill that addressed the balance that I related earlier. This one, because of it massive scope and breadth, has zero balance. Literally, if a serial rapist replete with leery eyes and a raincoat ate lunch at a restaurant, if he decided to head to the women's restroom and was impeded in any way, the restaurant would be subject to civil liability from the an action from Leery Larry.

If he made it into the restroom and made anyone therein 'nervous', again, the owner would then be subject to liability from the nervous patron (for other reasons not touched on by the ordinance).

So yes, I fully subscribe to non-discrimination in the services and good proffered and into entrance into the establishment. It is grossly unfair to subject an owner to liability from a Leery Larry type, and to boot subject them again to liability for being unable to police against the Leery Larry type on a proactive basis. The ordinance gives no saving grace whatsoever to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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