Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sections 2(3) and 2(10) seem problematic (forgive me if someone has already brought up what I'm about to say.

Regarding section 2(3), I really feel like the bill should specify that we're talking about the same pay for the same position. If it ends up that there are a couple more male managers than female managers, it's not necessarily a result of discrimination. Yet, in total and on average, the company in question would probably be paying men more. That's not a crime, but the bill kind of makes it out like it is.

For 2(10), the blanket ban on requiring employees to remove facial hair should, I believe, include some exceptions. Fire fighters, for example, cannot wear their breathing equipment if they sport a long beard, so fire departments therefore require that facial hair is kept short. It's an important rule, yet this bill would complicate it unnecessarily.

Just thought I'd add my two cents.

And while I'm at it, I'll say that 3(5) should have a grace period. It basically demands that every building with public washrooms creates a third restroom for people who do not belong to the traditional binary gender system. That's ridiculously expensive and sometimes unfeasible. I appreciate where it's coming from, but I just don't know if it can work. Maybe we make it so that all new public facilities include a non-gender-conforming washroom?

That aside, I think this bill is shaping up nicely. I look forward to working with the regions to implement a reparations program for African-Atlasians. In fact, I think the senate should really consider extending this bill to include something on our indigenous population.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Senators have 36 hours to object to bore's amendment


Thanks for your suggestions Hagrid, I think all three of those suggestions are good ones and should be implemented. The bill already mandates reparations for native atlasians as well as african atlasians, so that shouldn't need to be changed, though.

Oh, my bad. You're right! Totally missed it. Glad to see its inclusion.

Also, if any senators would be willing to sponsor an amendment on my behalf, I'll offer one shortly.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Okay, here's something that addresses my first two concerns. I thought about adding the washrooms thing now, but I expect it'll be a bit more controversial, so maybe we should separate it from the easier stuff. If anyone wants to sponsor, go ahead. And if anyone thinks my ideas can be expressed in better language, make the change! But there ya go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Anyone have any suggestions for how to address that? I could come up with something, but I'm curious to hear if other people think it's an issue and have any practical ideas for smoothing it out.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All right. No one said anything, so here's a suggested solution. Maybe it's too generous. I also fixed some spelling issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I prefer to abstain. I support most of the part of this bill (against sexual harassment,...) but considering I motioned to table the initial bill, voting Aye would be quite contradictory.

Yeah, you really need to find a way to stop yourself from getting hung up over weird little things.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

How much is Section 3.5 supposed to cost?

Truth be told, I left it vague because I knew no one would get me any figures and it left sufficient room for interpretation. Technically speaking, "grants for the purpose of..." could mean the government shells out $100 or the full cost of the whole project. It could also mean paying $20 for a sign that looks like this:




In my opinion, the bill leaves a good amount of discretion to the Department of Internal Affairs. But maybe I'm biased. Either way, I don't think section 3.5 has to cost a fortune.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You're seriously saying schools and workplaces can't prohibit daisy dukes as a matter of civil rights?  What do racial and gender quotas, irrespective of the number of qualified applicants, have to do with highway funding?

I urge the President to veto this absurd legislation should it pass.

I think there are ways to be productive about your concern without slandering the entire piece of legislation. A redraft altering the language in question could have a very real chance of passing.

That being said, our society usually expects a higher standard of care for matters related to children, so a non-discriminatory dress code at school could also probably qualify for an exemption.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Where was everyone when we were doing the last call for changes? This shouldn't happen.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As I indicated in private, I believe the redraft makes a lot of sense. I tried my best to fix the language of the dress code clause, and although it wasn't eloquent, I do think it did an okay job. So I'm a bit disappointed there, but in general I don't think it's a good reason to withdraw support from the bill. To be honest, I think a lot of the threats around voting against the bill have now become way too political. Think about the progress this bill would achieve. Throwing it away would be silly, and I don't think pinning the blame on the administration if the legislation now fails will work. The president could've gutted the text a lot more.