LC 1.11 LGBT protection Act

[lfromnj]

AN ACT relative to protections for LGBT Lincolnites.

Be It Resolved That:

1. No organization, society, or other group of more than three people which is otherwise open to members of the public may exclude a Lincolnite who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. This includes but is not limited to golf clubs, trade unions, professional associations, card clubs, or sporting clubs.

2. No school which receives more than $1 in funding from the Government of Lincoln, even if it is private or a public charter school, may exclude children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or children who are raised in a household by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of the sexual identity of either the child or the parent(s).

3. No institution or other entity which has been granted a tax exempt status by the Government of Lincoln may exclude a Lincolnite who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. Any institution or entity found in violation of Section 3 of this act will immediately forfeit their tax exempt status for ten years, although this forfeiture may be appealed to the Ministry of Justice after four years.

4. The Office of the LGBT Advocate is hereby established, within the Ministry of Justice, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Lincolnites.

5. All schools in Lincoln which receive more than $1 in funding from the Government of Lincoln, even if it is private or a public charter school, must include LGBT sexual education in any health and sexual education course taught at the school, beginning in 6th Grade. The LGBT sexual education must be taught in the same manner as heterosexual sexual education is instructed, which a special focus on sexual transmitted infections and the HIV/AIDs Crisis.

Sponsor : Dkrol
Slot: Government
Time to Debate 72 hours

[DKrol]

This is a commonsense bill that brings Lincoln's social policy into the 21st century.

[lfromnj]

I would like to clarify the meaning of open to the public in the first section?

[DKrol]

I would like to clarify the meaning of open to the public in the first section?

I intended it to mean things like those mentioned in Section 1, Part A and not to include more intimate associations. Clubs or groups that any other member of the public could walk in to and sign up for without any problem.

[lfromnj]

In that scenario I currently support section 2-5 if the sections are amended to state sexuality rather than gay or lesbian as I believe the government should be equal in its language here.I highly doubt that a straight person will ever be discriminated against but I believe in equal language in the government.

I can not support section 1 and I propose an amendment to remove section from the act. Even if they are open to the public they are still overall private organizations that should normally lack government funding or support which should be covered by the current section 3 in this act.

AN ACT relative to protections for LGBT Lincolnites.

Be It Resolved That:

1. No organization, society, or other group of more than three people which is otherwise open to members of the public may exclude a Lincolnite who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. This includes but is not limited to golf clubs, trade unions, professional associations, card clubs, or sporting clubs.

2. No school which receives more than $1 in funding from the Government of Lincoln, even if it is private or a public charter school, may exclude children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or children who are raised in a household by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of the sexual identity of either the child or the parent(s).

3. No institution or other entity which has been granted a tax exempt status by the Government of Lincoln may exclude a Lincolnite who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. Any institution or entity found in violation of Section 3 of this act will immediately forfeit their tax exempt status for ten years, although this forfeiture may be appealed to the Ministry of Justice after four years.

4. The Office of the LGBT Advocate is hereby established, within the Ministry of Justice, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Lincolnites.

5. All schools in Lincoln which receive more than $1 in funding from the Government of Lincoln, even if it is private or a public charter school, must include LGBT sexual education in any health and sexual education course taught at the school, beginning in 6th Grade. The LGBT sexual education must be taught in the same manner as heterosexual sexual education is instructed, which a special focus on sexual transmitted infections and the HIV/AIDs Crisis.

[DKrol]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

[lfromnj]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

[DKrol]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

Under the bill as introduced, Mr. Speaker, such a club would still be able to disallow someone from joining - they simply could not do so based solely on an individual's sexuality. I would probably not be allowed to join a slow-pitch softball league because I haven't swung a bat since tee-ball in Elementary School. A gay person could be rejected from such a league for the same reason, just not for their sexuality.

[lfromnj]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

Under the bill as introduced, Mr. Speaker, such a club would still be able to disallow someone from joining - they simply could not do so based solely on an individual's sexuality. I would probably not be allowed to join a slow-pitch softball league because I haven't swung a bat since tee-ball in Elementary School. A gay person could be rejected from such a league for the same reason, just not for their sexuality.

and as deplorable as it may to ban someone for their sexuality I believe that these organizations should have the legal right to do this. I would support a resolution of disapproval of any organization that does this.

[DKrol]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

Under the bill as introduced, Mr. Speaker, such a club would still be able to disallow someone from joining - they simply could not do so based solely on an individual's sexuality. I would probably not be allowed to join a slow-pitch softball league because I haven't swung a bat since tee-ball in Elementary School. A gay person could be rejected from such a league for the same reason, just not for their sexuality.

and as deplorable as it may to ban someone for their sexuality I believe that these organizations should have the legal right to do this. I would support a resolution of disapproval of any organization that does this.

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify your position here: you believe that clubs should be able to ban someone from joining for no reason other than their sexuality?

[lfromnj]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

Under the bill as introduced, Mr. Speaker, such a club would still be able to disallow someone from joining - they simply could not do so based solely on an individual's sexuality. I would probably not be allowed to join a slow-pitch softball league because I haven't swung a bat since tee-ball in Elementary School. A gay person could be rejected from such a league for the same reason, just not for their sexuality.

and as deplorable as it may to ban someone for their sexuality I believe that these organizations should have the legal right to do this. I would support a resolution of disapproval of any organization that does this.

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify your position here: you believe that clubs should be able to ban someone from joining for no reason other than their sexuality?

Yes Mr.Chancellor I believe said club should not have the right for any tax break but clubs are still private organizations and should have the right to choose who to exclude even if their reasoning is archaic.

[DKrol]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

Under the bill as introduced, Mr. Speaker, such a club would still be able to disallow someone from joining - they simply could not do so based solely on an individual's sexuality. I would probably not be allowed to join a slow-pitch softball league because I haven't swung a bat since tee-ball in Elementary School. A gay person could be rejected from such a league for the same reason, just not for their sexuality.

and as deplorable as it may to ban someone for their sexuality I believe that these organizations should have the legal right to do this. I would support a resolution of disapproval of any organization that does this.

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify your position here: you believe that clubs should be able to ban someone from joining for no reason other than their sexuality?

Yes Mr.Chancellor I believe said club should not have the right for any tax break but clubs are still private organizations and should have the right to choose who to exclude even if their reasoning is archaic.

Mr. Speaker, that is a deplorable position to hold.

[Comrade Funk]

Can you explain your reasoning for wanting to make golf clubs, card clubs, sports leagues, trade associations, and other such groups able to ban someone for their sexuality?

I edited my response below but as I said I believe that private organizations even if they are open to the public should have the ability to choose who they want. I am willing to change my mind and include an exception for trade unions due to the vast economic importance they have.

Under the bill as introduced, Mr. Speaker, such a club would still be able to disallow someone from joining - they simply could not do so based solely on an individual's sexuality. I would probably not be allowed to join a slow-pitch softball league because I haven't swung a bat since tee-ball in Elementary School. A gay person could be rejected from such a league for the same reason, just not for their sexuality.

and as deplorable as it may to ban someone for their sexuality I believe that these organizations should have the legal right to do this. I would support a resolution of disapproval of any organization that does this.

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify your position here: you believe that clubs should be able to ban someone from joining for no reason other than their sexuality?

Yes Mr.Chancellor I believe said club should not have the right for any tax break but clubs are still private organizations and should have the right to choose who to exclude even if their reasoning is archaic.

Privately owned places of public accommodation should not be able to discriminate whole groups.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) place the Supreme Court in agreement with Ifromnj. The bill of rights is more than just a banner to be discarded at the earliest convenience.

[lfromnj]

Anyway I would like to ask if the rest of the council is in agreement that the language should be neutral in the bill?

[lfromnj]

I formally vote on an amendment to remove section 1. Voting will start for now for 24 more hours for just the amendment.

[Former President tack50]

I hope this Council has the decency to reject this deplorable ammendment and keep section 1 as is.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I hope this Council has the decency to reject this deplorable ammendment and keep section 1 as is.

As it is? You mean, unconstitutional?

[Comrade Funk]

I vote Nay on the amendment

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Public organizations are already prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and Gender Identity under federal law.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=239985.0

[DKrol]

I vote nay on the amendment.

To the comment from the Attorney General, I say that it is important to codify that statute on a regional basis as well as on the federal level, in order to provide our citizens with the greatest amount of protections.

[lfromnj]

Anyway the amendment has failed

We now call for a final vote

I vote aye.

[DKrol]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

4. The Office of the LGBT Advocate is hereby established, within the Ministry of Justice, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Lincolnites.

Wait ... what? So if a gay guy robs someone they get a special prosecutor...

[Comrade Funk]

Aye