The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

The Equal rights Amendment was proposed to set equality for every citizen no matter the sex. The amendment has three sections. The first one states “equality of rights under the law should not be denied by the U.S on the account of one's sex.” Section two says that “congress has the power to enforce this law.” Last but not least, section three says the amendment will take effect two years after ratification.

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

Ellen DeGeneres states, “I'm not an activist; I don't look for controversy. I'm not a political person, but I'm a person with compassion. I care passionately about equal rights. I care about human rights. I care about animal rights.”(“Ellen DeGeneres Quotes.”). Ellen is a popular television host that isn’t afraid to express her opinion to the public. She knows that people do not need to have a high education in equality to understand the every person deserves to be seen and treated equally. People can still take a stand and make a difference simply by supporting a cause. Imagine being discriminated against for something one cannot control, such as their sex. Many people had faced this, until someone decided to take charge. The Equal rights Amendment was supposed to protect oneself from this type of discrimination. A lot has had to happen just to get this amendment up and running to be introduced. The equal rights Amendment has a long history and can be linked to many famous writings, which makes it easily relatable to almost everyone.

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

“We are not supposed to be all equal. We are supposed to have equal rights under law. If we do that, we have done enough.” – Ben Stein (Brainy Quote). Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States. With all of Houston’s diversity, it seems plausible to have an ordinance that protects people from discrimination. Houston is one of the largest cities and does not have an ordinance for equal rights compared to “225 cities… prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment ordinances” (Cities & Countries). An ordinance was brought into action in the midst of last year with Mayor Annise Parker’s active agenda. With the advancement of an equal rights ordinance potentially being passed through legislation; the

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).

Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) has been in the news for the past year. Houston is the only major metropolitan city in the country that doesn’t prohibit discrimination by businesses such as restaurants, bars and hotels. HERO would ban discrimination based on sex, race, age and religion, and expand anti-bias protection for gay and transgender residents. The ordinance would apply to private businesses, housing, city employment and city contracting. Churches would be exempt.

Racism is a powerful piece in our nations history. About more than 60 years ago, we struggled in a society of discrimination and racial segregation. We lived in a time of cruelty because we didn’t see eye to eye with a person who had a different skin color. But overtime we have evolved from racism and focused on fairness. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has contributed to racial equality by the Equal Protection clause. The clause was a deciding factor in cases that involved racism. Though it sometimes limited rights, the Equal Protection clause eventually became a key element to justice.

The history of the Equal Rights Amendment can be closely related to women’s rights advocacy, that started toward the very beginning of the history of the United States dating back to the days of Abigail Adams. The United States constitution had been first interpreted as rights granted to certain white males, leaving other majority groups suppressed and working for equal rights.

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari for many gender-based discrimination cases, and consequently there has not been much jurisprudential progress lately regarding Equal Protection Clause claims. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to back off of certain issues that they feel are largely solved for the time being. Feeling that the existing precedent is satisfactory, the Court has not shown a desire to alter the test for gender-based claims and have settled on using an intermediate level of scrutiny for such cases, in between rational basis and strict scrutiny. Race and national origin are the only groups that are given strict scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s current Equal Protection Clause analysis.

The issue being brought before the court today is the constitutionality of the Public Accommodations Equal Access Act. In addition, it is also evident that the facts in this case raise the issue of congressional authority. Moreover, in order for the Court to come to such a determination, Congress’ justification for the passing of such an act, as well as the powers of Congress, will be reviewed.

Recently, in Houston, Texas, voters repealed an equal rights bill, called the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, that protected marginalized groups of people, including people of color, the disabled, etc. “On Tuesday, November 3, Houston voted on whether LGBTQ people should be legally protected from discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. According to the Associated Press, the measure lost.” (German Lopez, Vox.com) Considering Houston is one of the bluest cities in the nation, it leads you to wonder; just exactly why was H.E.R.O. pulled? The answer is unfortunately simple: it would allow transgender people to use the restroom of the gender they identify as.

Where a gender-neutral alternative is available, the gender-discriminatory classification is not said to be the least intrusive means that the government can use, and therefore, the classification put forward by the government is not “necessary”. However, the government would be required to show that the means they use is necessary and narrowly tailored to advance its objectives only under strict scrutiny. Where the classification is not invidious, not selecting the least discriminatory means would not necessarily render the statute violative of equal protection. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646 (1981). As established supra, it is the intermediate scrutiny standard that applies to the present issue, and the City only needs to prove that its objective is important and the statutory classification is substantially related to that objective. It is not necessary for the City to pursue the least discriminatory means to pass the judicial review. The City will withstand intermediate

As the nation takes a new step into the era that is more accepting of the diversity of individuals Houston is getting left in the dust. A major city that is renowned for its diverse communities and inclusiveness has yet to adopt an equal rights ordinance. Houstonians as a whole need to look to a future where discrimination is not tolerated, and fear of man is relatively a thing of the past. Due to this change into an era that is all about equality Houston needs to pass the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance to show the nation that we are a diverse

A Utopian city is whatever you dream of your perfect society to be. In my utopian city, I would want everyone to be treated equally and no crimes committed. However in our world today that’s not the case. Sometimes it is a good idea for everyone to be treated equally. But sometimes, it’s not. In the world we live in today, there are some places where women don’t have rights. For example in Middle East Asia, there are many places where they don’t treat women properly. Obviously, I believe that everyone should have equal rights. Although, there is an exception, if someone is being an amazing person and giving back to the community they will have that pride in doing good deeds. But if someone were to commit a crime than why should they not