S.22.2-100: N.I.D.D.A.H. Act

[fhtagn]

N.I.D.D.A.H. ACT

1. This law shall be referred to as the No Icky Dirty Dames Are Here Act or the N.I.D.D.A.H. Act.

2. Nothing in Southern law shall be interpreted as prohibiting businesses in the Southern Region from temporarily excluding niddah customers and customers who are presently menstruating from patronizing their physical business location for the duration of such niddah or menstrual period.

3. Any business in the Southern Region that seeks to temporarily exclude niddah customers or customers who are presently menstruating from patronizing their business, shall post visible signage at each entrance to the physical store informing customers of the exclusion policy.

4. No business in the Southern Region may exclude niddah customers or customers who are presently menstruating from patronizing their business through an online portal or other method not requiring physical presence at the place of business.

5. Any business in the Southern Region that complies with all provisions of this act shall not be guilty of unlawful discrimination for temporarily excluding niddah customers or customers who are presently menstruating from patronizing their business.

6. This act shall take effect September 26, 2022.

Sponsor: fhtagn

[fhtagn]

I hope you know that you're a bunch of losers, right?

[fhtagn]

Since there doesn't seem to be any comments from any delegates, motion to suspend the rules and move to a final vote. 24 hours for objections.

[fhtagn]

When Badger actually said the n word in reference to black people on the forum, numerous mods came to his defense claiming that it wasn't the n word because he replaced one letter in the word.

I'm genuinely going to need any mod that has an issue with this bill title to explain how niddah is "too close to the n word" when it's an actual word, this bill is in reference to the actual word, and is even further from the n word previously mentioned on the forum thst just about every single mod came out saying was acceptable.

[fhtagn]

Some information for the people faking outrage over this bill and haven't educated themselves on what this bill relates to:

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to claim anything about the bill's title violates the ToS in any real way, and I truly invite anyone to point out specifically where it would even come close to violating it.

[fhtagn]

When Badger actually said the n word in reference to black people on the forum, numerous mods came to his defense claiming that it wasn't the n word because he replaced one letter in the word.

I'm genuinely going to need any mod that has an issue with this bill title to explain how niddah is "too close to the n word" when it's an actual word, this bill is in reference to the actual word, and is even further from the n word previously mentioned on the forum thst just about every single mod came out saying was acceptable.

Im curious if the adjective "bigger" is now banned forum wide for being only 1 letter off and therefore sounding much more like the no-no word claimed. After all, "bigger" shares 5 out of 6 letters with the banned word. The word in this bill shares 2 out of 6. Again I dont know how a mod can claim an actual word that 1. Is in a foreign language, 2. Predates the slur, 3. Is not pronounced the same as the slur, 4. Is not being used as a slur or a stand in therefore, 5. Shares only about 1/3 of the same letters as the slur, and 6. Is in the Bible, is obviously something posters should presume violates the TOS. An enforceable TOS has to be clear and consistent so that posters can conform their discussion to the rules. There is no way to conform to such an arbitrary standard as "when I mispronounce word A in my head it maybe, sort of sounds like word J despite being a different word, in a different language, that is 67% different in spelling, therefore word A is infractable." Like how is this anything but a scheme to chill speech and target specific posters for bs ideological reasons?

What until whoever reported this learns what a commonly used word for 'what' is in Chinese, or the name of a state in northeast India, or a Japanese word meaning "go away", or any number of homophones or quasi-homophones with histories essentially unrelated to the modern n-word or any of its derivatives or cousins or relatives.
When you don't know as much about the world, it can be easy to act on basis of ignorance.
Keeping an open mind and being respectful of other languages is a good thing. And actions speak louder than words.

Let me just say- there's nothing remotely respectful towards Hebrew or Judaism in passing a fake internet law that bans and discriminates against women by using a Hebrew word for a Jewish religious concept. In fact, it's kind of anti Jewish. I'd be offended if it happened in real life, here it's just sad. But don't pretend to respect us by cosplaying as fascist theocrats in our name.

Tell us you didn't actually read the bill without telling us you didn't actually read the bill.

[fhtagn]

When Badger actually said the n word in reference to black people on the forum, numerous mods came to his defense claiming that it wasn't the n word because he replaced one letter in the word.

I'm genuinely going to need any mod that has an issue with this bill title to explain how niddah is "too close to the n word" when it's an actual word, this bill is in reference to the actual word, and is even further from the n word previously mentioned on the forum thst just about every single mod came out saying was acceptable.

Im curious if the adjective "bigger" is now banned forum wide for being only 1 letter off and therefore sounding much more like the no-no word claimed. After all, "bigger" shares 5 out of 6 letters with the banned word. The word in this bill shares 2 out of 6. Again I dont know how a mod can claim an actual word that 1. Is in a foreign language, 2. Predates the slur, 3. Is not pronounced the same as the slur, 4. Is not being used as a slur or a stand in therefore, 5. Shares only about 1/3 of the same letters as the slur, and 6. Is in the Bible, is obviously something posters should presume violates the TOS. An enforceable TOS has to be clear and consistent so that posters can conform their discussion to the rules. There is no way to conform to such an arbitrary standard as "when I mispronounce word A in my head it maybe, sort of sounds like word J despite being a different word, in a different language, that is 67% different in spelling, therefore word A is infractable." Like how is this anything but a scheme to chill speech and target specific posters for bs ideological reasons?

What until whoever reported this learns what a commonly used word for 'what' is in Chinese, or the name of a state in northeast India, or a Japanese word meaning "go away", or any number of homophones or quasi-homophones with histories essentially unrelated to the modern n-word or any of its derivatives or cousins or relatives.
When you don't know as much about the world, it can be easy to act on basis of ignorance.
Keeping an open mind and being respectful of other languages is a good thing. And actions speak louder than words.

Let me just say- there's nothing remotely respectful towards Hebrew or Judaism in passing a fake internet law that bans and discriminates against women by using a Hebrew word for a Jewish religious concept. In fact, it's kind of anti Jewish. I'd be offended if it happened in real life, here it's just sad. But don't pretend to respect us by cosplaying as fascist theocrats in our name.

Tell us you didn't actually read the bill without telling us you didn't actually read the bill.

Lol don't worry I read your paragraphs called "bill". It's a bunch of drivel that no Jew, even the most extreme Haredim in Israel, would think to do. Using a Jewish concept to justify your social conservative virtue signaling isn't very respectful.

It's simply ensuring that any business that chooses to engage in the practice would be protected under Southern law, and ensures they must offer a reasonable accommodation in the instance someone would be excluded due to engaging in the practice so that the patron could not be denied service. That's literally all it does. You're engaging in fake outrage for literally nothing.