09-17-2019, 11:24 PM
Madam Speaker,
I will begin by addressing the concerns raised by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, before moving on to broader discussion of our Constitution - a document which we all ought to cherish, but ought never to abuse or manipulate in legislative debate.
Madam Speaker, Section 2, subsections three and four of this bill would simply ensure that political subdivisions of Alduria may not abuse their status to enforce ideological social planning on a private firm. These should both be self-executing, as will be shown.
Subsection three, in particular, prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that restricts private companies from adopting their own policies. So, if the Prime Minister's firm wanted to allow "Lisa" to use whatever bathroom "Lisa" desired, no subdivision could interfere with the Prime Minister's decision to make that policy. Subsection four is likewise self-executing, and would prohibit discrimination by subnational entities in determining who to do business with solely on the basis of their bathroom use policies, protected in subsection three.
I think, Madam Speaker, that the Interior Secretary would also find subsection five to be requiring the adoption of a policy in public bathrooms. This policy can be enforced as desired by the relevant public building administrator, but I would advocate for the least intrusive method possible. I also believe that this bill will heighten awareness of the perils of mixed-gendered bathrooms, and will serve in its own way of reinforcing cultural norms and protocols that one would've thought commonsense - and indeed were commonsense not too many years ago.
Turning now to the text of the Constitution that our Prime Minister has cited, I argue that he is drawing completely the wrong conclusions from Article 83. This bill does not enable discrimination of any shape or form - any more than bathrooms already discriminate in the sense of male versus female. If the Prime Minister wants to argue that we should move away from gendered bathrooms altogether, that we should all share and get along, then that is his prerogative. But it completely anathema to the wisdom of the ages, to our inherited customs.
Particularly, subsections three and four prohibit discriminatory practices by our nation's subdivisions. But even subsection five doesn't discriminate, it simply states that biological men should use men's rooms, and biological women should use women's rooms. Anything less than this is wrongheaded and prone to cause immense dangers to our nation - especially to our youth.
I yield.
I will begin by addressing the concerns raised by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, before moving on to broader discussion of our Constitution - a document which we all ought to cherish, but ought never to abuse or manipulate in legislative debate.
Madam Speaker, Section 2, subsections three and four of this bill would simply ensure that political subdivisions of Alduria may not abuse their status to enforce ideological social planning on a private firm. These should both be self-executing, as will be shown.
Subsection three, in particular, prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that restricts private companies from adopting their own policies. So, if the Prime Minister's firm wanted to allow "Lisa" to use whatever bathroom "Lisa" desired, no subdivision could interfere with the Prime Minister's decision to make that policy. Subsection four is likewise self-executing, and would prohibit discrimination by subnational entities in determining who to do business with solely on the basis of their bathroom use policies, protected in subsection three.
I think, Madam Speaker, that the Interior Secretary would also find subsection five to be requiring the adoption of a policy in public bathrooms. This policy can be enforced as desired by the relevant public building administrator, but I would advocate for the least intrusive method possible. I also believe that this bill will heighten awareness of the perils of mixed-gendered bathrooms, and will serve in its own way of reinforcing cultural norms and protocols that one would've thought commonsense - and indeed were commonsense not too many years ago.
Turning now to the text of the Constitution that our Prime Minister has cited, I argue that he is drawing completely the wrong conclusions from Article 83. This bill does not enable discrimination of any shape or form - any more than bathrooms already discriminate in the sense of male versus female. If the Prime Minister wants to argue that we should move away from gendered bathrooms altogether, that we should all share and get along, then that is his prerogative. But it completely anathema to the wisdom of the ages, to our inherited customs.
Particularly, subsections three and four prohibit discriminatory practices by our nation's subdivisions. But even subsection five doesn't discriminate, it simply states that biological men should use men's rooms, and biological women should use women's rooms. Anything less than this is wrongheaded and prone to cause immense dangers to our nation - especially to our youth.
I yield.