Regarding "McNair rescinds anti-HERO donation" (Saturday B2),  the Houston Texans owner may have succumbed to pressure from HERO supporters, but he hasn't rescinded his opposition to what has come to be known as the "bathroom ordinance."

That is because HERO supporters refuse to acknowledge that the law - despite its overall good intentions - does precisely what opponents claim: it allows all men - regardless of their sexual orientation - the right to enter women's restrooms and locker rooms.  It also allows them to disrobe in the presence of women, and the only way to restrict their access is to determine ahead of time a clearly criminal intent.

I understand why this distinction is lost on HERO activists, but I don't understand why it is lost on the public officials entrusted with protecting the women and girls of Houston from harassment - or worse - when they are so vulnerable.  

This is political correctness run amok, and Bob McNair is right: the HERO ordinance is sorely in need of "a thoughtful rewrite." 

Pete Smith 

Houston, TX 

Hall Pass For Sexual Predators

Regarding "HERO debate goes off-topic" (Friday front page), proponents of the HERO ordinance insist that it "would in no way protect predators" because we already have a city law that "bars someone from entering a restroom of the opposite sex with the intent to 'cause a disturbance'."

The question boils down to the word "intent."  Before HERO, store managers and the police could deny everybody - including sexual predators - access to the bathrooms of the opposite sex.  After HERO, store managers and the police must be able to magically determine intent to commit a crime before they can deny access.

Bottom line: male sexual predators have unrestricted access to the same restroom as your daughter, and can remain there until they "cause a disturbance."


Pete Smith
13906 Crow Ridge Ct
Cypress, TX

Intent To Injure

Regarding "L.A.’s rally breaks Tejada’s leg" (Sports C11), why does Major League Baseball tolerate the attempts of players to injure the opposition?  In the Angels/Yankees game yesterday, it was LA Dodgers Chase Utley running out of the basepath to take out the Mets Ruben Tejada at second base, breaking Tejada's leg in the process.  Utley never even attempted to touch the base until after he had untangled from Tejada.

Last Tuesday, the Yankees Didi Gregorius did exactly the same thing to Astro's superstar Jose Altuve, passing the base and taking out Altuve's knee and only afterwards reaching back to touch the bag with his hand.  By the grace of God, the Astro's second baseman was not injured.  MLB players and coaches all defend this brutality, saying things like "that's baseball", or "he didn't mean to hurt him", and my personal favorite as paraphrased by Utley's manager Don Mattingly: "that's just the way the game is played".  That doesn't make it any less a crime.  

Sliding into second basemen with cleats up has been happening since before Ty Cobb perfected the practice a century ago.  What is new - and more outrageous by the day - is base runners who literally stop playing baseball in order to collide with and disable opposing team infielders.

I don't understand why this practice is tolerated.  I also don't understand why people who do this are not in jail.  Workplace violence is no more acceptable because it happens on a baseball field.

Pete Smith
Cypress, TX