, , , , , , , , , , , ,

On May 28th2014, Houston, Texas Mayor, Annise Parker, and City Council passed a sweeping anti-discrimination ordinance. She said, “This is not the most important thing I have done or I will do as mayor,” said Parker, who was visibly moved after the ordinance was adopted. “But it is the most annise-parker-houston-mayorpersonally satisfying and most personally meaningful thing that I will do as mayor” according to the Houston Chronicle.

The very controversial ordinance is very much in line with current federal law, which imposes fines of up to $5,000 for discrimination based on many factors and include race to sex and to marital status. The ordinance applies to housing, private employers and all businesses serving the public, the city government and its contractors. Of course, all religious organizations are exempt.

While I applaud the general concept of this ordinance, I must say I am firmly against it due to a provision that was left intact in spite of protests of a multitude of people, religious groups and citizen’s. This provision allows transgendered women and men to choose which restroom they can use. The exact wording for this was dropped but the ordinance is still so broad that it still allows them to make the decision on where they use the restroom.

I believe in a society that is free of discrimination and harassment but as a society, we have a responsibility to protect its people. By allowing someone that “proclaims” to be transgendered the choice to go into any restroom they choose we open the possibility of a new avenue for sexual predators to gain access to our children, our wives and yes, our husbands.

What are we doing? What are we thinking when we think that this is okay? Something is seriously wrong in the name of political correctness. If you are male and have the physical attributes as one then you are a male and the same goes for female, regardless of your sexual preference. Because of this, each should be required to go to their own respective restrooms.

If our society is so bent on equal rights then do as they do in other countries and require a 3rd restroom but do not allow male, female, transgendered and the like to share restrooms. I have nothing at all against these people as I have many good friends that are gay. They are actually some of the most honorable and kind people that I know.

The issue is that this ordinance gives child predators; rapists and perverts a new way to access places they previously were not allowed. If you have young children that you used to let go to a public restroom in say a restaurant by themselves, of age of course, imagine that now they go and say it’s your daughter and now there is a male standing in the stall waiting for his next victim.

He approaches your daughter but someone else walks in and sees him. He is not questioned because he is there legally but thankfully, he was interrupted before he could attack your daughter. What if no one had walked in? The same goes for female sexual predators in a men’s restroom.

So I say great for equal rights and for equality but there must be some common sense outside of political correctness and for the benefits of votes or for the purpose in going down in history to say “look at what I did”.

Mayer Parker and City Council I am appalled that you have allowed this to be passed as it is written. The first child, wife or husband that is attacked is on your hands. Many of you cried and said that you are proud of what you have done. I do not agree. You should be ashamed of what you have done and you should be held accountable when the first incident happens because in time it will.

Repeal this decision and rewrite it to where our families, our children are protected while still allowing for the equal rights and access for the LGBT community.