SB 2016-007: LGBTQ+ Rights Act (Passed Senate)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

72 hours for debate.

[tmthforu94]

First, I want to give a huge thanks to Representative evergreen for largely writing this bill.

This is an amended version of the house bill that satisfies several of the concerns that were made to me. I added in a clause towards the end (written by 118AZ) that put marriage in the statue, just to clear up any potential confusion with the reset.

Because of my sexual identity, I've faced some challenged with discrimination and not quite knowing where to turn to when I needed help. This bill would be a big step forward towards making LGBTQ+ members in Atlasia feel more included and treated equally. My favorite part of this bill is section three, which would provide grants for anti-bullying programming, something we desperately need more of in our country.

Overall, I think the language we used is pretty straight-forward with headlines that clearly state the intent of each section. I welcome any questions that senators may have.

[Goldwater]

This amended version of the bill has my full support.

[Classic Conservative]

I, do have a question on Section 7 Subsection 3, can you explain what that means in non-legal terms for the ordinary citizen in this country?

[tmthforu94]

I, do have a question on Section 7 Subsection 3, can you explain what that means in non-legal terms for the ordinary citizen in this country?

I'll let 118AZ clarify if he meant something different, but my understanding is that it is to simply ensure an individual cannot be discriminated against for being married to a member of the same-sex. I think Section 1 essentially covers that so it could probably be cut out if you wanted, though I'll wait to see if 118AZ has anything to say.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I, do have a question on Section 7 Subsection 3, can you explain what that means in non-legal terms for the ordinary citizen in this country?

I'll let 118AZ clarify if he meant something different, but my understanding is that it is to simply ensure an individual cannot be discriminated against for being married to a member of the same-sex. I think Section 1 essentially covers that so it could probably be cut out if you wanted, though I'll wait to see if 118AZ has anything to say.

To add on to that it basically says same-sex couples are ensured the same benefits that heterosexual couples are ganted by law (such as tax deductions and other legal privileges.)

[Classic Conservative]

I, do have a question on Section 7 Subsection 3, can you explain what that means in non-legal terms for the ordinary citizen in this country?

I'll let 118AZ clarify if he meant something different, but my understanding is that it is to simply ensure an individual cannot be discriminated against for being married to a member of the same-sex. I think Section 1 essentially covers that so it could probably be cut out if you wanted, though I'll wait to see if 118AZ has anything to say.

To add on to that it basically says same-sex couples are ensured the same benefits that heterosexual couples are ganted by law (such as tax deductions and other legal privileges.)

Ok that's fine then.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

On section 4, what if the person is seeking it (conversion therapy) of their own free will? You'd punish those counseling them? That abrogates free will.

[Blair]

On section 4, what if the person is seeking it (conversion therapy) of their own free will? You'd punish those counseling them? That abrogates free will.

In the same way you can't seek Euthanasia in RL.

[This account no longer in use.]

As for the people opposing this bill, I have a question. What makes it okay to discriminate against LGBT+ individuals?

[Classic Conservative]

I'm confused on why we get rid of the gender markers on documents. Almost 3/5 of Atlasia believes we should keep them. It seems likes useless part of this bill to myself. And if every other country has these, why shouldn't we?

[This account no longer in use.]

A good point. If anything, it would be better to simply have a third gender marker instead of eliminating them completely.

[tmthforu94]

I did a friendly to change the section title. This was a concern that was brought up with evergreen's original bill that I corrected in this version.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like Senator Smith suggested, this does not eliminate gender markers. It only adds a third option for non-binary genders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think this is what people had in mind when they voted on eliminating gender markers. A lot of our constitution, especially when talking about the president, uses the pronoun "his." This isn't even necessarily just about people who use a non-binary gender. This is also about being inclusive for women, which we have several of on this forum.

[Goldwater]

As for the people opposing this bill, I have a question. What makes it okay to discriminate against LGBT+ individuals?

Especially considering there are already anti-discrimination laws applying to minorities. I mean, if this was 1964, I would probably vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for the same reasons that my namesake did, but in a world where the 1964 Civil Rights Act is law it seems unfair that it wouldn't also apply to LGBT people. Basically. all I'm asking for is consistency in our laws.

[Pingvin]

I will strongly oppose this bill that will let our society spiral further into insanity. What will come after "non-binary genders" (that exist only in the minds of people who had never read a basic biology book - and before you start on intersex infants, they're only about 1,5% of all births and can be fixed through surgery). Will we allow mentally ill to identify as non-humans?

[This account no longer in use.]

Pingvin, the 'slippery slope' argument is more tired and overused than the 'current year' argument.

[Blair]

I will strongly oppose this bill that will let our society spiral further into insanity. What will come after "non-binary genders" (that exist only in the minds of people who had never read a basic biology book - and before you start on intersex infants, they're only about 1,5% of all births and can be fixed through surgery). Will we allow mentally ill to identify as non-humans?

50 years ago they were telling people like me that we were mentally ill

[This account no longer in use.]

Besides, what does Pingvin mean by 'allow mentally ill to identify as non-humans'? Last time I checked, that's not currently prohibited, so why is he using that in the classic 'MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE' rant?

[NeverAgain]

I will strongly oppose this bill that will let our society spiral further into insanity. What will come after "non-binary genders" (that exist only in the minds of people who had never read a basic biology book - and before you start on intersex infants, they're only about 1,5% of all births and can be fixed through surgery). Will we allow mentally ill to identify as non-humans?

50 years ago they were telling people like me that we were mentally ill

Actually just 39. Pretty scary thought to me at least

[Pingvin]

Pingvin, the 'slippery slope' argument is more tired and overused than the 'current year' argument.

Besides, what does Pingvin mean by 'allow mentally ill to identify as non-humans'? Last time I checked, that's not currently prohibited, so why is he using that in the classic 'MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE' rant?

1) It's not a "slippery slope" if it's happening before our own eyes, when left is already trying to push the legalization of vile and disgusting degeneracy, therefore it's not a hypothetical situation. Perverts, sadly, already have a platform for free speech , so only we can prevent them from getting any kind of traction in politics and society.

2) To clarify my comments regarding "allowing mentally ill to identify as non-humans", I of course understood that some of them already do - what I meant is that idea of allowing "non-binary genders" on official documents (besides being ridiculous to any sane person) will create a precedent for removing any document marker that will stand in the way of some new, even more bizarre identity politics movement.

[This account no longer in use.]

1. Oh boy, two examples, one from a foreign country far to the left of ours, and one regarding a single person. That sure is convincing. As for the left, I didn't know we were trying to legalize 'vile and disgusting degeneracy', unless that's what you believe LGBT+ individuals do. And I wouldn't be surprised if you do believe that, given that you've probably never met an LGBT+ person in your life.

2. And why shouldn't we allow non-binary genders on official documents? It's literally just typing "Other" instead of "Male" or "Female". I don't see how that will create any precedent, given that it will be a complete catch-all for all gender identities other than male or female. There would be no need for any new gender markers. But please, feel free to go ahead and keep demonstrating the slippery slope fallacy to us.

[Pingvin]

1. Oh boy, two examples, one from a foreign country far to the left of ours, and one regarding a single person. That sure is convincing. As for the left, I didn't know we were trying to legalize 'vile and disgusting degeneracy', unless that's what you believe LGBT+ individuals do. And I wouldn't be surprised if you do believe that, given that you've probably never met an LGBT+ person in your life.

2. And why shouldn't we allow non-binary genders on official documents? It's literally just typing "Other" instead of "Male" or "Female". I don't see how that will create any precedent, given that it will be a complete catch-all for all gender identities other than male or female. There would be no need for any new gender markers. But please, feel free to go ahead and keep demonstrating the slippery slope fallacy to us.

1. Again, I used these as an example of what will be pushed upon the society if we will let this act slip. While I do not believe that all LGBT individuals are trying to push their agenda, a vocal minority of their activists is incredibly keen on systematically destructing the traditional family, gender and sex-related traditions.

2. The inclusion of "other" on official documents would mean that we officially recognize the concept of non-binary genders existing outside of someone else's fantasy. So called "non-binary" people are either: 1) mentally ill or 2) special snowflakes who weren't parented well-enough.

[Goldwater]

FFS Pingvin, nobody here is trying to legalize necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, or anything like that.

[tmthforu94]

I am proposing the following amendment to ensure that ALL are protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identities. This changes "LGBTQ+ status" to "sexual orientation and gender identity."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

Strongly oppose the bill, there are significant issues with religious liberty, therin.

We would not force a black businessman to bake a KKK cake. We should not force a Christian baker to violate their conscience either.