We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberty Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2611
Description[?]:
Article 1: Title
section 1: This shall be known as the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act
section 2: The short form shall be known as the PDPA
Article 2: Purpose
section 1: prohibits all forms of positive discrimination in all segments of society.
|
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Current: Hiring policies are regulated by local governments.
Proposed: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:43:29, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | Sorry Judicial Union but our laws stipulate that we do not discriminate base on gender and sexuality when it comes to sexual partners so that is already illegal. |
| Date | 06:59:41, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | Legality of Sodomy Currently: Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
So yes it does. We do not discriminate against it so what I said was right. Maybe you should comprehend what is being said instead of assuming I ment something else. |
| Date | 07:11:07, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | No, that says that the law doesn't regulate sexual relations between consenting adults. It is entirely legal and very common for a person to discriminate between the genders in choosing their sexual partners. |
| Date | 14:57:51, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | No Judicial Union. Maybe you are confused on legal terms but the law states as follows:
Sexual relations of all types are legal for consenting adults.
Now this is under the category of Sodomy. Under the current law, if I wanted to have sex with a man, I can legally do so without being discriminated against. If I were a woman and if I wanted to do it with a woman, I can legally do so without being discriminated against.
As such, it is illegal to discriminate "with regard to gender and sexuality with regard to choosing sexual partners. |
| Date | 17:50:03, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | Furthermore, we do not segregate public areas. So we do not discriminate there either. We have outlawed discrimination in nearly every area of society. This will do away with it in business. |
| Date | 23:24:40, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | The law doesn't discriminate with regards to sexuality and gender, we never suggested it did. Individual private citizens do however. A heterosexual man will only choose women as sexual partners. He is discriminating against other men, but is it wrong for him to do so? Of course not, for he is a private citizen, and he can choose who he wants to bed.
We allow gentleman's clubs, in which only men may go. We do so because it is a private organisation, and they have a right to choose who they want to allow as members.
The same idea applies to employment. If a business owner does not like people of a certain race, gender, religion etc, why should they be forced to hire them? It is their business, it is their money. The government has no place in regulating what a private citizen chooses. Indeed the state must not discriminate, but this law goes far beyond that. |
| Date | 07:21:25, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | Exactly. Hence our support. We do not favor affirmative action at all. We prefer that people be allowed to choose who they employ. Affirmative Action prevents them from employing who they want to. Now with the current proposal, they can employ whoever they want to. |
| Date | 07:23:28, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | What part of "the government does not regulate hiring policies" makes you think the government regulated hiring policies? Now people are restricting from preferring a certain class in their hiring - employers are restricted. |
| Date | 07:37:41, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Positive Discrimination Prohibition Act | | Message | ...the implication that "not regulating" means "regulating"? Now of course lawyers can be very good at arguing improbable things, but to argue that something means the complete opposite of its plain meaning, well, that's a little bit too much. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 267 |
| no | Total Seats: 169 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not implement nation renaming requests where the proposed name does not comply with the requirements set out in the Nation Renaming Guide: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6364 |
| Random quote: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people and neither do we." - George W. Bush |