HB 20-2: LGBT Protection Act (Passed)

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Aye!

[YE]

The amendment has passed.

I'll have a few comments on this later.

[YE]

I'd actually have to agree with fhtagn re: transgeneders in club sports actually.

I'd also be fine with upping the education threshold in Section 4 from 6th to 9th grade and will introduce such amendment shortly.

[YE]

Current text:

LGBT Protection Act

1. No organization, society, or other group of more than ten people which is otherwise open to members of the public may exclude an Atlasian who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. This includes but is not limited to golf clubs, trade unions, professional associations, card clubs, or sporting clubs.

2. No school which receives funding from the Government of Atlasia, may exclude children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or children who are raised in a household by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of the sexual identity of either the child or the parent(s).

3. The Office of the LGBT Advocate (run by NPCs) is hereby established, under the Office of the Attorney General, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Atlasians.

4. All public or charter schools that receive funding from the Government of Atlasia must include LGBT sexual education in any health and sexual education course taught at the school, beginning in 6th Grade. The LGBT sexual education must be taught in the same manner as heterosexual sexual education is instructed, which a special focus on sexual transmitted infections and the HIV/AIDS Crisis. This does not apply to private schools.

[YE]

Amendment:

LGBT Protection Act

1. No organization, society, or other group of more than ten people which is otherwise open to members of the public may exclude an Atlasian who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. This includes but is not limited to golf clubs, trade unions, professional associations, card clubs, or sporting clubs.

2. No school which receives funding from the Government of Atlasia, may exclude children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or children who are raised in a household by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of the sexual identity of either the child or the parent(s).

3. The Office of the LGBT Advocate (run by NPCs) is hereby established, under the Office of the Attorney General, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Atlasians.

4. All public or charter schools that receive funding from the Government of Atlasia must include LGBT sexual education in any health and sexual education course taught at the school, beginning in 69th Grade. The LGBT sexual education must be taught in the same manner as heterosexual sexual education is instructed, which a special focus on sexual transmitted infections and the HIV/AIDS Crisis. This does not apply to private schools.

24 hours to object.

[fhtagn]

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

[Attorney General & LGC Deputy Dwarven Dragon]

The amendment has passed.

No? The count is 4-4-1. The Nays and Abstentions:

nay

Nay

The text as originally proposed regulates Charter schools.

"2. No public or charter school"

Nay on the Amendment.

Nay

Abstain.

I'll support your latest Amendment though.

[YE]

Alright I miscounted.

Need a VP to break a tie hold on.

[Poirot]

I hope the VP respects the sponsor's wish.

[Pericles]

Aye on the amendment.

[YE]

Amendment passes 5-4. Now let's back up....

[YE]

Current text:

LGBT Protection Act

1. No organization, society, or other group of more than ten people which is otherwise open to members of the public may exclude an Atlasian who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. This includes but is not limited to golf clubs, trade unions, professional associations, card clubs, or sporting clubs.

2. No school which receives funding from the Government of Atlasia, may exclude children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or children who are raised in a household by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of the sexual identity of either the child or the parent(s).

3. The Office of the LGBT Advocate (run by NPCs) is hereby established, under the Office of the Attorney General, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Atlasians.

4. All public or charter schools that receive funding from the Government of Atlasia must include LGBT sexual education in any health and sexual education course taught at the school, beginning in 6th Grade. The LGBT sexual education must be taught in the same manner as heterosexual sexual education is instructed, which a special focus on sexual transmitted infections and the HIV/AIDS Crisis. This does not apply to private schools.

[YE]

Amendment:

LGBT Protection Act

1. No organization, society, or other group of more than ten people which is otherwise open to members of the public may exclude an Atlasian who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of their sexual identity.
a. This includes but is not limited to golf clubs, trade unions, professional associations, card clubs, or sporting clubs.

2. No school which receives funding from the Government of Atlasia, may exclude children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender or children who are raised in a household by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender on the basis of the sexual identity of either the child or the parent(s).

3. The Office of the LGBT Advocate (run by NPCs) is hereby established, under the Office of the Attorney General, with the purpose of investigating and prosecuting any and all crimes relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Atlasians.

4. All public or charter schools that receive funding from the Government of Atlasia must include LGBT sexual education in any health and sexual education course taught at the school, beginning in 69th Grade. The LGBT sexual education must be taught in the same manner as heterosexual sexual education is instructed, which a special focus on sexual transmitted infections and the HIV/AIDS Crisis. This does not apply to private schools.

24 hours to object.

[YE]

Since fhtagn already objected, opening an amendment vote for 72 hours.

[Dr. MB]

abstain, I don't care

[fhtagn]

Nay.

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

[Attorney General & LGC Deputy Dwarven Dragon]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay

[YE]

Aye.

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?

[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.

[Sestak]

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.

[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.

[Sestak]

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.

[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.