LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

LGB Dignity Bill

All self described reperative therapy, psychological therapy, self help and 'ex gay' institutions, associations and ministries with the intent to subdue, erase, reform, negatively influence or attempt to change an individuals sexual orientation are hereby outlawed.
Spon: Sen. Afleitch

[MasterJedi]

As long as they aren't being forced to go there (could change this bill to make sure people who are underage aren't forced to go there) there is no reason to ban them. And we can go back to what Peter said in the Senate Protest and Analysis Thread.

[afleitch]

As long as they aren't being forced to go there (could change this bill to make sure people who are underage aren't forced to go there) there is no reason to ban them. And we can go back to what Peter said in the Senate Protest and Analysis Thread.

It's a template bill. It's designed to be amended.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why should we ban them?

[Lief 🗽]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

[Хahar 🤔]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

[Hash]

I have strong doubts about this bill's constitutionality and I intend to oppose it in its current form.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This bill has my support. These institutions can hurt a person for the rest of their lives, and engage in plenty of questionable and downright damaging tactics to "repair" someone. Even if going to one of these institutions is a "choice."

[Franzl]

I have strong doubts about this bill's constitutionality and I intend to oppose it in its current form.

I agree with Senator Hashemite.

I despise these institutions and all forms of homophobia....as you all know, but I have my concerns about outright banning.

[tmthforu94]

As long as people aren't forced to go to these institutions, I see no reason for them to be outlawed.

[Lief 🗽]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

[Purple State]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution. I have no problem amending this to state that underage minors may not be forced to attend such institutions, as well as to include a statement condemning these institutions. Anything more I will have to vote against.

[Fritz]

As much as it troubles me to do this, I too will have to oppose this in its current form- unless evidence is brought forth that involvement in such groups may be involuntary.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Since ex gay treatments don't work, it should count as fraud and false advertising, and thus already be illegal on those grounds.

Anyway, making them pay back the money to every single client that they do not successfully "cure" would probably make them go out of business quite fast, and would thus probably be more effective than an outright ban if you ask me.



    

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

[Purple State]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

I assumed that someone would take this to court as well, should it pass. My point is that the Senate earlier passed at least one piece of unconstitutional legislation, and passed it even though they knew it had dubious constitutionality, and I don't want some of the people who openly supported such dubious and later proven unconstitutional actions to lecture the rest of us on constitutionality.

[Purple State]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

I assumed that someone would take this to court as well, should it pass. My point is that the Senate earlier passed at least one piece of unconstitutional legislation, and passed it even though they knew it had dubious constitutionality, and I don't want some of the people who openly supported such dubious and later proven unconstitutional actions to lecture the rest of us on constitutionality.

The GM bill was a legitimate question for the court. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

I assumed that someone would take this to court as well, should it pass. My point is that the Senate earlier passed at least one piece of unconstitutional legislation, and passed it even though they knew it had dubious constitutionality, and I don't want some of the people who openly supported such dubious and later proven unconstitutional actions to lecture the rest of us on constitutionality.

The GM bill was a legitimate question for the court. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Matter of opinion, Senator. Many, including myself by the end, also thought your previous actions were "blatantly unconstitutional."

[Marokai Backbeat]

Though the amendment will probably pass, I object and want a vote on it.

[Purple State]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

I assumed that someone would take this to court as well, should it pass. My point is that the Senate earlier passed at least one piece of unconstitutional legislation, and passed it even though they knew it had dubious constitutionality, and I don't want some of the people who openly supported such dubious and later proven unconstitutional actions to lecture the rest of us on constitutionality.

The GM bill was a legitimate question for the court. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Matter of opinion, Senator. Many, including myself by the end, also thought your previous actions were "blatantly unconstitutional."

Simply by virtue of the Court's lengthy decision, it is clear the question regarding the GM was up in the air. No where in the Constitution was the GM referred to as an executive department.

On the other hand, this violates free speech, the right (albeit likely misguided) to pursue happiness and a slew of other clauses in the Constitution.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This bill is disgusting, if people want to better themseleves why should they be denied?  What are we going to ban next, rehab clinics for alcoholics?

[Marokai Backbeat]

This bill is disgusting, if people want to better themseleves why should they be denied?  What are we going to ban next, rehab clinics for alcoholics?

That you would even compare the two makes me want to spit on you if I ever ran into you in person.