TheNew York Times’ editorial on the defeat of the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is beyond offensive. It’s irresponsible. Voters in Houston overwhelming rejected an overly broad city ordinance, one that was both poorly drafted and poorly sold by the city’s mayor and her supporters.

The Times calls that “hate.”

“Sometime in the near future, a transgender teenager in Texas will attempt suicide – and maybe succeed – because vilifying people for their gender identity remains politically acceptable in America,” the Times declared in a Thursday editorial.

That’s outrageous. Suicide, particularly of the young, is tragic. It should be taken very, very seriously. According to the National Alliance for Mental Illness, “Suicidal thoughts or behaviors are both damaging and dangerous and are therefore considered a psychiatric emergency.”

The Times, however, sees teen suicide as a cudgel to club those ornery Texans with.

Let’s look at the vote in question.

“Known as the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, or HERO, the measure would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race and a dozen other categories,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “It was backed heavily by Houston Mayor Annise Parker and a cadre of national Democratic political figures, and proponents poured more than $3 million into the push to pass it.”

One element of the ordinance became the focus early on – “no business open to the public could deny a transgender person entry to the restroom consistent with his or her gender identity,” as the Houston Chronicle explained.

So any business owner who objected to men in women’s restrooms (and locker rooms) would be a criminal. That was just too much for Houstonians, and in particular the black churches and social conservatives. So they voted it down.

This isn’t the story of bigots running wild in Houston. It’s the story of a poorly drafted ordinance that didn’t have an opt-out clause for, say, churches or schools where young people gather. That’s either egregious overreach or poor planning on Mayor Parker’s part. Either would be enough to get the ordinance defeated.

But it wasn’t just the ordinance; it was also the campaign. Parker took the unconscionable step of subpoenaing the sermons of pastors in Houston – all in an effort to shut down opposition to the ordinance. She was forced to drop those subpoenas, but she was unapologetic. She turned many undecided voters against the ordinance with such heavy-handed and unconstitutional tactics.

The underlying issue, though, is a strange expansion of what we consider to be rights. As the Times pointed out, “On Monday, the Department of Education backed a transgender student in Illinois who is fighting for the right to use restrooms and locker rooms on campus like any other female student.”

How is that a right? And don’t the (biological) girls in those bathrooms and locker rooms have rights? The Times doesn’t think so.

Discrimination is wrong. But the Houston ordinance wasn’t really about discrimination. It was about forcing acceptance and accommodation.

This isn’t diversity; it’s a demand for uniformity of thought and attitude.

TheNew York Times doesn’t get that.