Non-controversial NDO, Mrs. White, Chron.com
On its face, there is nothing controversial in the NDO. One could even claim that it is rather conservative, in the sense that this policy has been tested elsewhere time and again. The ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of categories already covered by federal law. It also extends protections to gay and transgender residents, following nondiscrimination laws that other cities and states have had on the books for years. Religious organizations and small businesses are exempted, and the maximum fine is $5,000.
Unpopular Referendum. Mrs. White, Chron.com
At first glance, 50,000 signatures is an impressive number, but the manner in which they were collected puts that number into doubt. City Hall is double-checking the information submitted, and LGBT groups plan on independently running their own verifications. We hope they run the signatures through a fine-toothed comb. Houston should not be a place that snatches away dignity because of a mistake.
Of course, dipping one's toes into the deep water of LBGT issues is fraught with danger. There's very little reason being applied to this issue and a whole lot of emotion. If you doubt that, take a look at the comments of the two editorials. Go ahead, we'll wait.
The thing is, Mayor Parker's pay-back legislation to her long-time friends in the LBGT lobby was sold poorly and, to my way of thinking, actually hurts their cause more than it helps. And I say this as someone who is on the record as being in favor of LBGT marriage, equal protection etc.
In the first editorial it's very clear that Mrs. White is floundering around searching for page-hits. To claim, counter-intuitively, that the NDO is "non-controversial" requires one to ignore all of the controversy surrounding it. Never mind that the notorious "bathroom clause" was pulled out of the bill during the Grand Urinal Bargain of 2014, the issue is still implicit within the ordinance with enforcement being tasked to the Houston Police Department. No matter where you stand on the ordinance this should send a small shudder down some spines when the ramifications are considered.
In most cases, complaints of this nature are going to be "he/she said, he/she said" which is going to put the responding officer in the impossible position of determining the party's thoughts. Unless you're the Great Karnac and have mental abilities beyond those of a normal human being that task is impossible. On top of that, might there be a chance that the HPD rolls up on an emotionally charged situation? Do we really want stun-guns deployed because a man in a dress was denied access to the women's restroom?
In their second Editorial Mrs. White tries, unsuccessfully, to make a case for representative democracy over full democracy by trying to bring California's flawed ballot referendum into play and, oddly enough, some quotes from James Madison. You know, to bring an air of authority to the argument. The problem with Mrs. White's logic is that it's exclusionary to one side.
In Mrs. White's world, it's OK for "LGBT groups" to interject into the process by running their own (unbiased I'm sure) verification project on the signatures but beyond-the-pale to think that people might, possibly, have the opportunity to petition for relief from an ordinance that they find runs counter to their idea of community standards. If Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel then cognitive dissonance is the last refuge of the dim-witted.
In order to buy Mrs. White's argument that the religious objectors stay out of the scrum then you also have to call for the LGBT supporters to remove themselves as well. IF Democracy is best-served by the diktat of our ruling-class betters then it has to be considered to be best-served for the interest of both parties. If the ordinance is good, then the verification-process must be good as well. You cannot have your cake and eat it too when it comes to these matters.
All of this highlights a bigger problem that has wormed itself into the heart of the Statist movement. The idea that the banning, regulating or outlawing of things they don't like is exempt from public review or criticism removes all credibility when Mrs. White and her fellow travelers decide the ruling class is attacking something they like. These arguments frequently end up with calls for the total exclusion of the opposite side from the political process.
The heart of most Mrs. White arguments is that they do not like when people take exception to things that they want done. Any objection to "the greater good" is treated as a pox on the sensibilities of a community rather than an honest attempt of the dissenters to have a say in an issue where they were given little input. In fact, the denial of NDO opponents speaking time, in favor of NDO supporters, on the day of passage was more horrendous than is the current attempt at referendum.
In the end, you get the sneaking feeling that all of this is much ado about nothing. The social conservative majority in the Houston area lives outside of the city limits and therefore has little say on what the City chooses to do. I've a feeling that, should the referendum make it to the ballot, it has a better than average change of passing. However, the ideas of Mayor Parker, Mrs. White and others that one side should have special privilege to conduct their own review of signatures is troubling, as is the idea that those doing the review are not disinterested third-parties but will be committed activists appointed by a Mayor who has admitted that this referendum is more of a personal quest than good government policy.
I think there is a way to ensure that Houston's GLBT population receives equal protection under the law. I do not think that the current Houston NDO is the correct way to do this. Reading the language of the law I think it is divisive, hurtful and possibly discriminatory to those who might conscientiously object.
It goes without saying that a real leader would understand this and could disassociate the personal from the political. A strong editorial board worried about the health of the community would understand this as well. Unfortunately, Houston currently has neither. Since Mrs. White is incapable of performing their job in a professional manner the only conclusion is that their time has passed and the Ed Board should be shuttered while the newly freed resources are redeployed to local news coverage.
