Pacific Council: Trans Protection Act (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 10:54:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Pacific Council: Trans Protection Act (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pacific Council: Trans Protection Act (Passed)  (Read 385 times)
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 13, 2013, 10:29:35 PM »
« edited: November 20, 2013, 08:10:26 PM by Acting Governor PJ »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sponsor: Flo
---------------------
Discuss.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2013, 10:38:28 PM »

I'd like to point out that in an ideal society, all buildings would have gender-neutral bathrooms, but this cost would be astronomical to small businesses. I would like a cost estimate, but I want to see if the sponsor (Flo) is interested in changing this at all, since this is quite an old bill.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2013, 12:20:04 AM »

#3 absolutely support.

#1 I don't know - all buildings? That's pretty intrusive, so I'll have to look into the percentage of the population that's either hermaphroditic or biologically neutral.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2013, 12:21:25 AM »

Haha no, PJ. I realized it would be far too expensive and intrusive.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2013, 12:34:17 AM »

Haha no, PJ. I realized it would be far too expensive and intrusive.
Would you support amending this to just government buildings?
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2013, 01:33:00 AM »

#3 definitely has my 100% support, and it might already be protected by the Constitution.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2013, 09:38:14 PM »

Can I amend it so we only have clause 3?

Trans Protection Act

1. Trans people will not be denied housing, employment, etc. based on them being trans.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2013, 09:41:11 PM »

Can I amend it so we only have clause 3?

Trans Protection Act

1. Trans people will not be denied housing, employment, etc. based on them being trans.

So are we not doing it in government buildings? That's another opportunity to reduce unemployment.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2013, 11:07:32 PM »

Can I amend it so we only have clause 3?

Trans Protection Act

1. Trans people will not be denied housing, employment, etc. based on them being trans.

So are we not doing it in government buildings? That's another opportunity to reduce unemployment.

My economic bills should help much more, I think we should debate those and keep the amendment of the bill.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2013, 11:10:44 PM »

Okay, but I would still be interested in that in the future.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A majority has expressed support of this, so let's bring it to a vote.

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2013, 11:16:18 PM »

Aye
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2013, 01:08:30 PM »

Aye
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2013, 04:01:01 PM »

Yes.

And I would support something with government buildings, although not private unless there is reimbursement, but then we would get into cost and space issues. It would actually be just an extra restroom, which would be fine.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2013, 08:25:13 PM »

With three votes in favor and two not voting, this bill is passed. It is hereby presented to the Governor for his signature.

(I will not sign this until the legal controversy is sorted out)
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2013, 08:10:16 PM »

X Politics Junkie
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 13 queries.