Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:12:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15
Author Topic: Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)  (Read 16206 times)
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2014, 11:11:48 PM »

This goes against religious freedoms and as such I will fight to destroy this.

I don't like that 'religious freedom' is a convenient code word for permissible discrimination. But overall, this bill takes a good message, that we should embrace difference and reject intolerance and discrimination to an extreme.

I don't believe that can force tolerance, if it is enforced by law, then it's not real. We need to change people's minds through deed and words.

But this, if passed, would render preaching against homosexuality or abortion as criminal offenses worth taking away the right to keep and bear arms. TNF fails to realize this is a freedom of conscience issue. Atlasians of faith will not stand for their rights of religious conscience to be violated in such manner. The bill would force tolerance down people's throats.

You know how the saying goes - "one's freedom goes as far as it limits one other's". There is a difference between "religious freedom" and preaching against homosexuality or abortion. The latter is not religious freedom, it is bigotry and defamation.

When both homosexuality and abortion are specifically condemned as sinful by both Jewish and Christian texts, to deny the right to teach such is counter to religious teaching. Thus religious freedom would be violated and governmental persecution against Christians and those with similar views would cause something this government could never handle.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2014, 10:33:58 AM »

I would just like to put out there that appeals to 'freedom of conscience' won't change my position on this, as I do not categorically believe in the 'freedom' of anyone to be a Nazi, Klansman, or bigot. The only freedom I believe in for those enemies of working class unity is the freedom to get the s**t beat out of them when they open their mouths and shout their bile from a loudspeaker.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2014, 10:47:57 AM »

Government censors would pose a far more serious threat to Atlasians than any marginal, ridiculous bigot.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2014, 11:15:10 AM »

I would just like to put out there that appeals to 'freedom of conscience' won't change my position on this, as I do not categorically believe in the 'freedom' of anyone to be a Nazi, Klansman, or bigot. The only freedom I believe in for those enemies of working class unity is the freedom to get the s**t beat out of them when they open their mouths and shout their bile from a loudspeaker.

What should we make of someone who demands limits on purportedly dangerous speech while inciting mob violence against his political enemies from the Senate floor?

If the state will not prohibit the enemies of the working class from spewing their hateful propaganda, I don't see what the issue is with advocating that said class prohibits that speech by whatever means it finds necessary.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2014, 12:40:18 PM »

motion to amend the bill by removing the following, and renumbering everything accordingly:

Section II: Clauses 1-6, 10
Section III: Clauses 1-6
Section IV: Clauses 1-6

These are clearly objectionable to almost everyone so let's clear them out and work backwards from there to figure out any sort of hate crime language that could pass.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2014, 12:41:37 PM »

Also do we still have motions for splitting bills because if so I'd like to do that for Section 1 and spin it off as a constitutional amendment
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2014, 12:42:08 PM »

Amendment proposals are friendly from Bacon King, given that it's clear the liberalism of the game won't permit us to do what is necessary to defeat the greatest threat to working class emancipation.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2014, 03:59:13 PM »

bore's proposed amendment is unfriendly, for the record. Somehow I missed that one.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2014, 04:02:27 PM »

Senators, a vote is now open on bore's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain:



Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2014, 04:04:08 PM »

Also this:
motion to amend the bill by removing the following, and renumbering everything accordingly:

Section II: Clauses 1-6, 10
Section III: Clauses 1-6
Section IV: Clauses 1-6

These are clearly objectionable to almost everyone so let's clear them out and work backwards from there to figure out any sort of hate crime language that could pass.

Proposed by Bacon King

Status: Friendly

Senators have 36 hours to object to this amendment
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2014, 04:04:38 PM »

Nay
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2014, 04:31:01 PM »

Aye
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2014, 04:42:22 PM »

Aye
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2014, 05:11:05 PM »

Also do we still have motions for splitting bills because if so I'd like to do that for Section 1 and spin it off as a constitutional amendment

Since the previous ability to do so was not overtly present in the rules, it merely operated using certainly endorsed functions to achieve that objective if that makes sense. If you are referrign to what I pushed for regarding the Pacific (half bill, half amendment and the vote threshold becames the lowest amount necessary to pass the whole thing -2/3rds and the amendment half goes to the regions whilst the legislation goes to the President), then I would assume so as long as you amend in clear instructions as to which section goes where obviously.

Nix would  no better as to whether this implied ability is still present though.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2014, 08:11:45 PM »

I would just like to put out there that appeals to 'freedom of conscience' won't change my position on this, as I do not categorically believe in the 'freedom' of anyone to be a Nazi, Klansman, or bigot. The only freedom I believe in for those enemies of working class unity is the freedom to get the s**t beat out of them when they open their mouths and shout their bile from a loudspeaker.

You don't hear any of us on the right trying to deny communists like yourself freedom of speech. So who are you to deny free speech to your fellow Atlasians because of their ideological views. While I catagorically think communism is a flawed and failed method of governance and economic theory, I will never act to take away your political voice TNF for the simple reason that your individual voice will spark another leftist like mine will spark that of a conservatarian. 

Motion to table the entire bill effective upon the results of the outcome of the amendment vote.

Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2014, 08:15:28 PM »

I am still very conflicted on this and need to work through it.

I'll abstain on the amendment at the moment.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2014, 01:11:03 AM »

Aye
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2014, 07:11:50 AM »

Also do we still have motions for splitting bills because if so I'd like to do that for Section 1 and spin it off as a constitutional amendment

Since the previous ability to do so was not overtly present in the rules, it merely operated using certainly endorsed functions to achieve that objective if that makes sense. If you are referrign to what I pushed for regarding the Pacific (half bill, half amendment and the vote threshold becames the lowest amount necessary to pass the whole thing -2/3rds and the amendment half goes to the regions whilst the legislation goes to the President), then I would assume so as long as you amend in clear instructions as to which section goes where obviously.

Nix would  no better as to whether this implied ability is still present though.

Yeah, I'm almost certain that I cant start a new slot for a part of the bill, but if you want to make a part of it an amendment and have the other art not need 2/3rds that should be fine.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2014, 09:56:28 AM »

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2014, 04:55:12 PM »

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.

I do see religious freedom in preaching against homosexuality and abortion. We don't preach against people. We preach against activities that will be destructive in this life and in the life to come. Do I need to site both Christian and Jewish scripture which condem both activities?
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2014, 05:23:06 PM »

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.

I do see religious freedom in preaching against homosexuality and abortion. We don't preach against people. We preach against activities that will be destructive in this life and in the life to come. Do I need to site both Christian and Jewish scripture which condem both activities?

Do you also believe people who commit adultery should be stoned to death?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2014, 05:40:12 PM »

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.

I do see religious freedom in preaching against homosexuality and abortion. We don't preach against people. We preach against activities that will be destructive in this life and in the life to come. Do I need to site both Christian and Jewish scripture which condem both activities?

Hence why we are secular liberal democracy, freedom of religion also extends to freedom from religion. If you have those views, that's dandy and you're entitled to have them, regardless of how regressive I (and many others) view them. Our social policy should be driven by maximising inclusion in our society not creating edicts by the loudest that do nothing except exclude and prioritise the narrow views of some to the determent of others.

I don't support the Bill as it stands because I do believe in the freedoms of thought and speech. But like all courts note, all freedoms and rights are not absolute. Your rights to express your views exist until such time as you are undermining the rights others should expect in our society.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2014, 09:33:04 PM »

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.

I do see religious freedom in preaching against homosexuality and abortion. We don't preach against people. We preach against activities that will be destructive in this life and in the life to come. Do I need to site both Christian and Jewish scripture which condem both activities?

Hence why we are secular liberal democracy, freedom of religion also extends to freedom from religion. If you have those views, that's dandy and you're entitled to have them, regardless of how regressive I (and many others) view them. Our social policy should be driven by maximising inclusion in our society not creating edicts by the loudest that do nothing except exclude and prioritise the narrow views of some to the determent of others.

I don't support the Bill as it stands because I do believe in the freedoms of thought and speech. But like all courts note, all freedoms and rights are not absolute. Your rights to express your views exist until such time as you are undermining the rights others should expect in our society.

What other rights are in conflict with the speech that this bill would ban or limit?

Can you give me context for that question?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2014, 09:54:44 PM »

I'm referring to the final sentence of your post, i.e. "Your rights to express your views exist until such time as you are undermining the rights others should expect in our society." Does anything in this bill actually address this problem, and, if so, what other rights are being undermined in its absence?

That was a general statement, while in the same paragraph as a reference to the Bill, that sentence does not directly reference the Bill, it is a personal view or the limits and reach of one person's rights versus another's.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2014, 05:23:46 AM »

Why y'all still talking about speech freedom limitations like I didn't already get those removed from the bill
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 11 queries.