HB 20-2: LGBT Protection Act (Passed)

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the amendment. We shouldn't be in the business of dictating what is taught in a private school, nor should we be dictating what is taught in schools anyway. Education is best left to the regions.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the amendment. We shouldn't be in the business of dictating what is taught in a private school, nor should we be dictating what is taught in schools anyway. Education is best left to the regions.

Do you support the bill as I originally proposed it?

As originally proposed, no. As I said, education is best left to the regions. The more we allow the federal government to dictate policy, the less we allow the regions to focus on. If the regions are reduced to having nothing important to focus on, we kill regional legislatures. Kill regional legislatures, you kill opportunities for new players to get involved, and you kill the game.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the amendment. We shouldn't be in the business of dictating what is taught in a private school, nor should we be dictating what is taught in schools anyway. Education is best left to the regions.

This isn’t dictating what’s taught. It’s simply saying that students can’t be excluded from attending based on whether they’re LGBT or whether their parents are.

Try re-reading the bill. Specifically section 4.

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Also worth noting an important issue with section 1, especially when it gets to reaching things like sport clubs (and in some cases related to this, professional associations also related to sports). If you have an organization that is dedicated to women's sports for example, it's perfectly reasonable to prohibit someone from joining that might have an existing physical advantage over cis women in the club/organization.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the amendment. Once again, education is a regional issue.

[fhtagn]

Nay.

The amendment does nothing to address legitimate issues with the bill.

[fhtagn]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

[fhtagn]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

[fhtagn]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

"does nothing to resolve" means it addresses something besides the issue you're concerned with. In fact, this amendment clearly doesn't move the bill any further away from your position. The argument could be made that it moves it closer, but even if you don't agree with that, the section still goes from "unworkable no" to "unworkable no" for you. Literally the only reason to object to an amendment that you don't think makes the bill any better or any worse is in order to slow proceedings by a few days.

If you are going to make ignorant statements that aren't remotely based in facts, I suggest taking a bit of a break and not coming back until you're able to think clearly.

I made very clear that I objected to the amendment because it doesn't resolve any issues with the bill. In the case of this amendment, I said already that education is a regional issue. Moving the age range a bit doesn't make it any more of a federal issue.

Unlike you and several others in here, some of us actually care enough about the regions to not want to take everything away from them.

[fhtagn]

Also worth noting, even the sponsor requested Section 4 to be struck:

Yeah, I'd appreciate this not being a partisan bill. I'd urge the chamber to reject MB's amendment and then strike Section 4.

[fhtagn]

The objection above seems obstruction to me, with all due respect. Why oppose an amendment just because one opposes a bill in general? Now it'd make sense if the objector thought objecting amendment makes a bill worse but it isn't clear that's the case. If anything, when incorporating the argument of the objector, doesn't my amendment (though it wasn't fully intended to be viewed this way) make it more regionalist since it allows regions to step in and regulate at the middle school level rather than be subject to federal regulations?

I brought up legitimate concerns, ones other people in here have expressed that they agreed with. That's not obstruction.

I suggest actually paying attention.

Voting against some amendment because you have an issue with a provision of the bill that the amendment isn't even concerned with, that either means you don't understand the amendment process...or you're trying to obstruct anything, even unrelated stuff, until your demands are met.

The amendment does concern an issue I raised with the bill, and as I said already, the amendment does nothing to resolve the issues with the bill.

I suggest reading the thread and trying again after you've done so.

I’ve argued that a case could be made that my amendment, from your argument, could be seen as an improvement but I realize that some may not buy such argument. That aside, unless you are arguing that my amendment makes it worse, the objection was unnecessary. Just because you don’t agree with a bill or a part of the bill doesn’t mean you have to object to unrelated amendments.

Considering you offered an amendment that not only doesn't fix the issue, but also goes against the sponsor's wishes for the bill, the objection was justified.

[fhtagn]

Also worth noting, even the sponsor requested Section 4 to be struck:

Yeah, I'd appreciate this not being a partisan bill. I'd urge the chamber to reject MB's amendment and then strike Section 4.

Yes, I'd support striking section 4 and I'll bring that up once this vote is done. But in the event that does not have the votes, YE's amendment still weakens the power of section 4 by making middle schools exempt, therefore it remains a step in the right direction, and therefore I voted for it. Sometimes you have to prepare for the possibility of not getting everything you want by accepting the idea of an incremental step. It's how life works. 

If a bill is overall bad because of certain sections, making them less bad doesn't make them good. Especially when the section has no good reason to exist anyway.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the final vote motion.

[fhtagn]

I also have another amendment to make once this is finished, that is in line with another concern several people here have made from both sides.

[fhtagn]

I also have another amendment to make once this is finished, that is in line with another concern several people here have made from both sides.

Does it make section 1 Constitutional? That seems like the biggest concern (or at least should be).

It does have to do with section 1, which was something several people on here agreed was a concern, both on the left and the right.

[fhtagn]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Amendment passes 5-2

After it's officially called by a presiding officer, I will be proposing an amendment that addresses concerns with section 1

[fhtagn]

I'll have the amendment up within the next 24 hours (working IRL tonight, off tomorrow).

[fhtagn]

Motion for a final vote as it appears the Amendment is not forthcoming

Is this the vote to kill it? Seems odd to want to rush a vote on an unconstitutional bill unless your goal is to kill it.

The majority does not believe this is unconstitutional.

That doesn't mean it isnt unconstitutional.

There were concerns that even the left agreed they had with section 1, and you have a duty to aid in addressing those concerns as the sponsor.

The amendment is in the works, however unlike Wulfric, I have a life outside of Atlasia that sometimes causes a bit of a delay.

Objecting to the final vote motion.

[fhtagn]

Wulfric, you are not a presiding officer and do not have the authority to open a vote.

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

it's time to move along as I have two other bills waiting

This wouldn't have been an issue if you didn't push for a rules change.

Once again, you prove that you lack the ability to think things through.

[fhtagn]

it's time to move along as I have two other bills waiting

This wouldn't have been an issue if you didn't push for a rules change.

Once again, you prove that you lack the ability to think things through.

The minority at the time set out to dominate the calendar by frontloading the queue such that 8 of the 10 bills on the floor at any given time would be from the minority for the entire session. We acted because we had no choice, unless we were to give up on the Griffin agenda, for even though it disadvantaged us individually, it benefited the left as a whole.

A competent Speaker/Deputy Speaker would not have had an issue with the queue. If you looked at past Congresses, what I just said is a fact. The past 2 Congresses have only proven that the rules change was a mistake.

[fhtagn]

Motion for a final vote as it appears the Amendment is not forthcoming

Is this the vote to kill it? Seems odd to want to rush a vote on an unconstitutional bill unless your goal is to kill it.

The majority does not believe this is unconstitutional.

Did "the majority" not refer to binding Supreme Court jurisprudence?   hurley and Dale are pretty clear.

I would encourage the court to overturn such precedent to the extent required to permit this bill.

Forcing through an unconstitutional bill violates the oath you swore when you took your seat.