Houston Ordinances

ISSUE: Whether the separate but equal principle violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas reflects that, and it is justified by the unconstitutionality of the sodomy statute in question, the fact that Lawrence and Garner’s arrest was unconstitutional, the precedent set by Romer, and the outdated nature of the previous ruling on sodomy statutes in Bowers. Additionally, the mental well-being of the LGBTQ+ community will be improved by this ruling, further justifying it and its necessity. People should not be discriminated against simply because they have sex with people whose gender matches their own, and the Lawrence ruling, in reducing the amount of discrimination that is possible, allows an equal future to be a possible

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was at first created to protect against racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court later expanded the clause to also providing equal treatment amongst different races. The clause says, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.) A person could not be discriminated upon solely because of his or her race and if the law treated a group of people differently, then a valid reason for the discrepancy of different treatment must exist. Racial minorities, but mainly women, have historically been subjected and made vulnerable to harsh restrictions on activities such as voting, attending college, and working as lawyers. These restrictions, based on stereotypes overlooked the actual capability and potential of each individual woman. For many cases dealing with discrimination of women, the Court looked to another important element of equal protection, which stated that unfair treatment couldn’t be based on immutable distinctions, such as race and gender, because those fixed distinctions are uncontrollable and unrelated to ability. In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), the Supreme Court was just one vote short of adopting gender as a suspect classification. In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), women rights supporters were very pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling and remain

Houston is a large city with very unique qualities that most cities cannot even begin to understand, but is this just Houstonian pride talking? No, actually one of the unique qualities that Houston has is how we handle our land use planning. Houston is well known for not having any zoning ordinances, which has become a well-known topic for a while now. People argue weather our lack of zoning is chaotic, unorthodox, or independent and distinct. Another unique quality that we have is where our political culture stands. Dr. Elazar’s “Individualistic - Traditionalistic” study of political culture talks about three categories moralistic,

Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.

Texas has its own laws for employment discrimination but employers who follow the federal laws will be compliant under the Texas labor code.. The Texas Labor Code Anti-Discrimination Provisions are very similar to the Federal Discrimination guidelines. This is a similar trend throughout many states within the U.S. In Texas, local governments can establish their own anti-discrimination rules. For example, in the city of Austin, several city ordinances make it unlawful to restrict access to public accommodation or discriminate on employment on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation specifically to lesbians and gays. It is also illegal to discriminate

Lawrence and Garner approached the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals in November of the following year, by June of 2000 the three-judge panel decided in their favor, the Texas statute was considered unconstitutional. Justice John S. Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy had decided that the statute violated the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution, which bans discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin. It was a 2-1 ruling, Justice Harvey Hudson dissented. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, and on March of the following year, the ruling was reversed and the law’s constitutionality was upheld with a 7-2 decision. The equal protection and substantive due process arguments were denied. After that loss,

One con to this case was that even under independent state equal protection analysis, state courts are still responding as did the U.S. Supreme Court: “the existence of ‘some inequality’ .. is not alone a sufficient basis for striking down the entire system.” This reluctance to require equality marks the majority of all state decisions, as it did in the federal equal protection field. Nonetheless, plaintiffs continue the traditional equality arguments (Verstegen, 1998).

It is against the Constitution of the U.S.A as well as any laws whether state, federal and international that seeks to protect everyone and ensure that rights are equally distributed. However, this has been ironic of Texas’s

In order to be on the same page as other major cities across the United States, motions were made over a year ago in Houston to pass an equal rights, anti-discrimination ordinance known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). At last a decision was made, and on November 3rd, 2015, HERO was struck down by 61 percent of the voters by referendum (Fernandez). The premise of the anti-discrimination ordinance is similar to those of other cities across the nation; to prevent discrimination on the bases of 15 different classes including race, age, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Houston’s mayor Annise Parker, who identifies as gay herself, was a strong supporter of the proposition for equal rights, and as all supporters in the Houston area agreed, it would put Houston on the map of inclusive and tolerant cities (Fernandez). On the other side of the argument is the conservative population of Houston. With the majority of political opinion in the Houston area being that of highly conservative leaning, HERO proved to be a controversial ordinance for many of these individuals. In an effort to increase support for opposing HERO, conservative politicians in the Houston area therefore took advantage of conservative ideals to promote a counter-position to the anti-discrimination laws (Ura).

Despite the name, The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act ironically increases minorities’ fear of discrimination. As a result, many people question the constitutionality of the law. States laws like SB 1070 infringe on basic constitutional rights such as potential violation of the fourteenth amendment. In fact, these laws violate the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law, treaties, and the Constitution are supreme law of the land, thus “allow[ing] discrimination against a discrete and insular minority or infringe on a fundamental right in violation of the Constitution” (Gilbert 201). Therefore, this law violates the fourteenth amendment because it deprives citizens of equal protection under the law. Additionally,

My mother was a police officer for almost twenty years. Women have long been subject to, and the subject of, discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally did not include gender in the bill’s wording. Were it not for a backhanded comment made in jest by a backward congressman, women would not have been afforded equal rights protection in employment (Freeman, 1991; 2004).

First, I created a poster that encouraged people to fight for equality because it’s a subject that is being talked about more and more in my classes, which emphasizes that Penn State values this enough to encourage professors to teach hiring women and paying them equally. The poster itself was aimed more towards women for that reason but, other subjects like sexual orientation, religion and other components of one’s lifestyle can be included in this poster. So, why is this important? Well people are being discriminated a lot in the work place, in the community and other

Gender equality is a pressing issue in the United States. The definition of gender, and the rights that accompany them, is constantly being updated and adjusted. The LBGT community is fighting for equality after being repressed for many years. Because of this sudden movement, social issues are sparking outrage and debate on whether a certain law or right for LBGT people is to be initiated. In many instances, these issues dominate the media, and cause for chaos on both sides of the spectrum. The bathroom controversy exemplifies this. The LBGT community argues that anyone should be able to use whichever bathroom that matches with their identified gender. Members of the LBGT community should not be able to use whatever bathroom they please.

In this group project, we discuss two cities – Houston and Dallas about their own background, which we called story and the comparison between them as well. Firstly, this paper will describe the Houston city’s history and background, by using the timeline, it is easy to consider the economy, politic, education and transportation for each of the city chronology. In this way, we can finally discuss the characteristic and opportunity for each of these two cities; thus, give them various suitable solutions for the future plan, which we called blue print, to help the city expansion.