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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In general I think many of the critics of this chamber would be helped if they more thoroughly looked at the text of the bills passed by this chamber on their own merits.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

To restrict speech in this way is profoundly illiberal. Free speech is important, and so is tolerance and reasonable accommodation of religion. In an American context, anyhow...
I like Parrotguy and consider this an area where reasonable people can disagree. But religion will always have a space in the public sphere, and that is hard to deny.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

To restrict speech in this way is profoundly illiberal. Free speech is important, and so is tolerance and reasonable accommodation of religion. In an American context, anyhow...
I like Parrotguy and consider this an area where reasonable people can disagree. But religion will always have a space in the public sphere, and that is hard to deny.

I just want to make it clear that this literally does not violate the terms of service and that as you said it is illiberal to report the text of the bill, especially when it doesnt violate the terms of service. You can disagree with the policy but reporting the text simply because you disagree is an abuse of the system. Especially if the report was against a neutral floor officer who merely posted the text of a bill from the introduction thread pursuant to official duties, as though the floor officer can predict when a bill that is within the TOS will offend some rando.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

To restrict speech in this way is profoundly illiberal. Free speech is important, and so is tolerance and reasonable accommodation of religion. In an American context, anyhow...
I like Parrotguy and consider this an area where reasonable people can disagree. But religion will always have a space in the public sphere, and that is hard to deny.

I just want to make it clear that this literally does not violate the terms of service and that as you said it is illiberal to report the text of the bill, especially when it doesnt violate the terms of service. You can disagree with the policy but reporting the text simply because you disagree is an abuse of the system. Especially if the report was against a neutral floor officer who merely posted the text of a bill from the introduction thread pursuant to official duties, as though the floor officer can predict when a bill that is within the TOS will offend some rando.

It does spook me a bit, the mere prospect of such efforts meeting some modicum of success.
Moderators should not indulge such behavior regardless of which direction it comes from, whether it be me, you, or anyone else.
If you dislike the bill, you have the means to express so. It's so curt to just threaten to flip the table...
We should have a civil and respectful public square.

[Saint Milei]

I hear Badger has been charged with public masturbation in the past, too. I think we can all tell something’s broken inside of him. Look up Brandon Mayhew Breaking Bad for more information.

[Saint Milei]

You guys got more upset about this than badger's use of the n word.

[Devout Centrist]

I hear Badger has been charged with public masturbation in the past, too. I think we can all tell something’s broken inside of him. Look up Brandon Mayhew Breaking Bad for more information.

Look up Brandon Mayhew Breaking Bad

[America Needs R'hllor]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

There is no orthodox policy in Israel that allows businesses to keep women out one week a month. Even the most extreme Orthodox fanatics who spit at and threaten women whose skirt doesn't reach their shoes don't demand or want this.
This is a cynical use of a Jewish concept to virtue signal your social conservativism in an American context. As far as I'm concerned, it's a smear of Judaism. Find other ways from Christianity to make women third class citizens in an internet game, if you like.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

There is no orthodox policy in Israel that allows businesses to keep women out one week a month. Even the most extreme Orthodox fanatics who spit at and threaten women whose skirt doesn't reach their shoes don't demand or want this.
This is a cynical use of a Jewish concept to virtue signal your social conservativism in an American context. As far as I'm concerned, it's a smear of Judaism. Find other ways from Christianity to make women third class citizens in an internet game, if you like.

You dont get to gatekeep the Bible. The Torah is part of the Christian Bible too and its frankly insulting and bigoted for you to claim to be some universal spokesman for Judaism when there are multiple competing interpretations of Torah. Its ridiculous that you think you get to come into a thread in a game you arent playing and whine that "omg I disagree with your interpretation of part of the Torah so im literally reporting you all for being antisemitic reeeeee." Its abusive to the reporting system and its clearly not a TOS violation.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly this bill is terrible. But I will make a good faith effort and debate it on the merits.

How on Earth do you even enforce this? It's not exactly like women menstruating carry a sign with them!

Let's put it this way: any woman religious enough to abide by said rules will already know she is not supposed to go to the stores. And any woman who does not herself believe in those rules can easily go into the store and a sign won't stop her. So unless Mr R's plan includes heavily invasive "menstruation detection" tests somehow; this bill is complete nonsense that tries to solve a nonexistent problem

Parrotguy also manes the good point that not even the most strict forms of Judaism enforce that. And while yes the Old Testament is a part of the Bible, to my knowledge there is no Christian group that has anything like that either

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm interested in seeing what Mr. R's response to this most recent post is.
My understanding is that this legislation is not necessarily focused on giving store owners any kind of total control, and serves more as a liability shield in terms of its overall impact. It does not force anyone to do anything.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm interested in seeing what Mr. R's response to this most recent post is.
My understanding is that this legislation is not necessarily focused on giving store owners any kind of total control, and serves more as a liability shield in terms of its overall impact. It does not force anyone to do anything.

Exactly. There is no criminal enforcement mechanism to enforce against menstruating women. This instead prevents the few Orthodox who opt to do this from being sued or being themselves prosecuted for "discrimination". We have a very expansive bill of rights that requires accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs whenever possible and weve been passing a lot of bills like this.

 I mean, I dont think communion is literally Jesus's flesh but we passed a liability shield for that. I dont support hijabs or turbans or keep kosher but we required accommodations for those in jail, employment, and colleges. I dont support muslims refusing non-halal organ donations from non-muslims but we accomodated that. We provided a liability shield for people who religiously object to waxing the genitals of someone of the opposite sex. We provided a liability shield for people who religiously object to using certain pronouns. We provided an accomodation to Muslims who find seeing eye dogs sinful. We set accommodating building code and farming rules to protect the orthodox. We permit the Amish and Indians to opt out of photo IDs if they religiously object to being photographed. We have a pending bill on indigent burials and autopsies to respect religious considerations. We have another pending bill to accommodate jewish and Muslim bereavement rules. Our anti witchcraft laws exempt bona fide religious practice. Like this is literally par for the course weve been taking.

Again, pass or fail this bill isnt really important to me. But I strongly denounce any claim that this is somehow "antisemetic" just because someone has a different interpretation of Torah. And it is bullying to abusively report this debate, whether you think this policy is bad or good. Nothing in it violates the TOS. Yet I ended up with 2 new reported posts last night and Fhtagn 1 all from this thread. Because in the Who's Online you can see when a particular poster is reporting a post, so we know who did it. The real solution is to debate better or pass a federal amendment like is already in the works. Not report posts that you merely disagree with to try and get posters in trouble for no legitimate cause.

If this had been voted down, it would be a dead issue. But now that someone is falsely crying TOS violations as the Senate debates an amendment literally encouraging this bad-faith strategy to endrun debates they cant win, its no longer about the policy in the bill and rather about letting bullies win by silencing free debate.

[If my soul was made of stone]

[Goldwater]

Our anti witchcraft laws exempt bona fide religious practice.

Your what laws? Why is that even a thing that even exists, lol.

In any case, while this is a bill that seems dumb and pointless to me, the idea that it somehow violates TOS is completely absurd. Even if you think the use of Jewish terminology in this bill is disingenuous, I fail to see how that counts as report worthy antisemitism. As for the idea that the title is too close to a racial slur, that is just a laughably redicoulus stretch I can't even believe it was sincerely being considered.

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

this is a bill that seems dumb and pointless to me.

So, in other words, it's a bill in the South.

[Alcibiades]

I'm interested in seeing what Mr. R's response to this most recent post is.
My understanding is that this legislation is not necessarily focused on giving store owners any kind of total control, and serves more as a liability shield in terms of its overall impact. It does not force anyone to do anything.

Again, pass or fail this bill isnt really important to me. But I strongly denounce any claim that this is somehow "antisemetic" just because someone has a different interpretation of Torah. And it is bullying to abusively report this debate, whether you think this policy is bad or good. Nothing in it violates the TOS. Yet I ended up with 2 new reported posts last night and Fhtagn 1 all from this thread. Because in the Who's Online you can see when a particular poster is reporting a post, so we know who did it. The real solution is to debate better or pass a federal amendment like is already in the works. Not report posts that you merely disagree with to try and get posters in trouble for no legitimate cause.

Oh, so in addition to creating a million and one of these awful bills, you also spend your entire time obsessively monitoring the Who’s Online page — after all, how else would you have just happened to catch Parrotguy reporting the post at that exact moment? Not incredibly sad at all, nope. You definitely have a life outside of this game…

[Former President tack50]

I'm interested in seeing what Mr. R's response to this most recent post is.
My understanding is that this legislation is not necessarily focused on giving store owners any kind of total control, and serves more as a liability shield in terms of its overall impact. It does not force anyone to do anything.

Exactly. There is no criminal enforcement mechanism to enforce against menstruating women. This instead prevents the few Orthodox who opt to do this from being sued or being themselves prosecuted for "discrimination". We have a very expansive bill of rights that requires accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs whenever possible and weve been passing a lot of bills like this.

 I mean, I dont think communion is literally Jesus's flesh but we passed a liability shield for that. I dont support hijabs or turbans or keep kosher but we required accommodations for those in jail, employment, and colleges. I dont support muslims refusing non-halal organ donations from non-muslims but we accomodated that. We provided a liability shield for people who religiously object to waxing the genitals of someone of the opposite sex. We provided a liability shield for people who religiously object to using certain pronouns. We provided an accomodation to Muslims who find seeing eye dogs sinful. We set accommodating building code and farming rules to protect the orthodox. We permit the Amish and Indians to opt out of photo IDs if they religiously object to being photographed. We have a pending bill on indigent burials and autopsies to respect religious considerations. We have another pending bill to accommodate jewish and Muslim bereavement rules. Our anti witchcraft laws exempt bona fide religious practice. Like this is literally par for the course weve been taking.

Ok so instead of useless the bill is pointless. That is not exactly the best defence I've ever seen for a bill. I still stand by the fact that this bill tries to solve a problem that does not exist.

I will also remind everyone here that the one actually Jewish poster has claimed that not even the most hardline Jewish variants propose anything like this. So again, pointless bill.

[WD]

Joke region