Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[Cranberry]

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?

The thing is, you cannot divide the people from the activities. If you are preaching against "homosexual activities" you are preaching against the people that "commit" them. If you are preaching against abortion you are preaching against the people who get an abortion. And as Senator Polnut remarked quite pointy, freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. People who want no religion shall be allowed to be left alone with their non-religion, and this is not possible if some guys think they need to preach out loudly against some guys because they do something some three-thousand year old book says. There is just no justification for this. I mean, I couldn't care less if the bible said you had to hop on one feet all day - have fun doing it but please just leave me and everyone else alone.

[Bacon King]

What was originally Section 4.10 remains within the law, unless I'm mistaken.

4.10 actually appears to be more lenient than existing Atlasian law banning gay-conversion therapy, so I don't see the issue here.

[TNF]

What's the status on the amendment vote, bore?

[bore]

What's the status on the amendment vote, bore?

4-1-1 with about 2 hours to go. BK's amendment has passed.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Then my motion to table becomes active.

[Bacon King]

Amendment to remove of 4.10 (in original numbering)

Amendment to give Section 1 the status of a constitutional amendment

More to follow

[bore]

Bore's amendment has passed, also I'm about to post the current text.

Then my motion to table becomes active.

lol no

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Part 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Motion to table

[bore]

Amendment to remove of 4.10 (in original numbering)

Amendment to give Section 1 the status of a constitutional amendment

More to follow

Proposed by: Bacon King

Senators have 36 hours to object

[TNF]

Bacon King's proposed amendment is friendly, FTR.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the current (soon to be text) assuming the latest amendment is adopted?

[TNF]

What is the current (soon to be text) assuming the latest amendment is adopted?

Everything that was just posted, minus Section 1 and 4.10

[bore]

BK's amendments have been adopted

Rather than posting a new current text I've just edited the one I posted last.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would recommend inserting the following instructions in some form:

Section 1 of this legislation shall be treated as Constitutional amendment and upon passage by 2/3rds of the Senate shall be sent to the regions for ratification. The subsequent sections shall be treated as legislation and shall upon passage by a majority of the Senate be sent to the President for executive action.

You also split it up with the first half in section one and the rest below section one.

The time I did this kind of split approach before, I gave the bill and Amendment containted within the combined act, its own independent title and instructions. Otherwise the Regions will have a hard time titling the amendment portion in a consistent fashion.

[Bacon King]

What else to get an aye vote from everyone? Anyone have strong opinions about hiring quotas?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 3.1 could be interpretted to ban regulations to ensure the safety of said conteceptives.

I am still not comfortable with the idea of separatism.

I also worry about the language section in terms of encouraging that. Between the process that is going to be legalized in section 1 and the language section, we are setting us on the road to Belgium and thus encouraging the utilization of the section 1 process down the road.

I respect diversity and value the contributions, but as we have learned with our politics in real life, when you don't talk to each other you tend to go self-segregate and focus on what seperates as opposed to what brings together. If people cannot communicate with each other it sets society down a very bad path in my view. English should be the national language of gov't, but it should go further and establish English as the standard language with an expectation that all be able to communicate via it, even as they preserve their own language as a part of their customs.

[Cranberry]

I guess everyone is okay with Sections 5,6,7, BK. At least enough to get this bill passed I would think.

As much as I'm not opposed to quotas in theory, I would guess that they are quite hard to enforce when it comes to quotas regarding LGBTQ-people... After all, I don't think we have a legal definition of who everyone is exactly LGBTQ before the law, how big a share of our population this exactly is, and lastly, if the person in question is or not...

[windjammer]

Well,
Sorry for not having been active before, here are my thought:

Regarding Section 1, if I understand correctly, The so-called 'right' to 'self-determination' has been recognised by Atlasia since Wilson's 14 Points, so what's the point with that???

Then, the term "oppressed" is deeply flawed I guess. What do you mean by opressed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Iin which way Arab Atlasians have been oppressed for example?
This list is highly questionable...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is definitely trash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is unconstitutional.


Is this bill an attempt to end the current unity of Atlasia?

[Cranberry]

Hasn't Section 1 been amended out of the bill?

[windjammer]

No, now this is an amendment to the constitution,
So,
My amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

And I second JCL's motion to table.

This bill, not only Section 1, is unconstitutional: the constitution with the right of free speech forbides any hate speech regulation, see Snowstalker vs the Midwest, or Scott vs the Northeast.

[Bacon King]

Section 1 has been amended to be the status of a constitutional amendment. Perhaps if you were active like me you would pay better attention...

[windjammer]

Section 1 has been amended to be the status of a constitutional amendment. Perhaps if you were active like me you would pay b
etter attention...

Lol yes I saw that but that would have still been unconstitutional .
(and still a frivolous section)