Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[TNF]

Current text?

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly

[TNF]

I am satisfied with having a final vote once that issue is resolved, yes.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly.

[TNF]

I motion for a final vote.

[TNF]

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.

This is a nonsensical reason to not vote for this bill.

[TNF]

Aye

[TNF]

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.

Prohibiting short shorts on girls out of fear that wearing them will somehow provoke the animal urges of their male peers is sexism, pure and simple. Rather than caving into sexism, we should be teaching young men to view women not as sex objects, but as fellow human beings. I don't think that's absurd at all. Nor do I think that correcting for past injustices by diversifying the federal hiring pool is in anyway absurd.

What is absurd, of course, is pretending that this legislation is anything other than a moderate reform, negotiated by all members of this esteemed chamber. This is nowhere near as radical as I'd have wanted, but it's a great bill and if the President vetoes it, I'm going to motion that we overturn that veto.

[TNF]

I will not accept any re-draft that annuls the affirmative action provisions in this bill.

[TNF]

That portion is more or less the crux of the bill, as it provides a way by which the oppressed can gain more of a foothold in higher wage, unionized employment.

[TNF]

Annulling the dress code provision = apologizing for sexism

[TNF]

The re-draft is unfriendly.

[TNF]

I would like to vote on the re-draft. I ask the Senate to reject this re-draft and we continue debate.

[TNF]

Nay

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I have modified my proposal to include a July 1 implementation date.

[TNF]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

More of a principle issue, but I've always remained unconvinced that forcing the federal government to hire based on race or gender quotas is the best solution when it comes to this issue. It's very simplistic argument, I know, but I would rather have the best individuals hired regardless of their race/gender than have them hired because of those two conditions.

Except that some of the best candidates are never hired precisely because of their race/gender.

[TNF]

I motion for a final vote.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly.

[TNF]

Motion for a final vote.

[TNF]

Aye

[TNF]

That's one hell of a message, 10-0.

[TNF]

This is injurious to religious freedom. Where are the reasonable accommodations for pastors preaching and laymen preaching what their religious conscience dictates without fear of governmental retaliation? They aren't there. Please reconsider this signature and redraft the bill with clauses protecting religious conscience and freedom.

I don't give a sh#t about parasitical preachers