if someone identifies as pansexual, for example, they may be more readily discriminated against post- (potential) enaction of this law (because the law does not explicitly include pansexuality).
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered.
The problem really boils down to, they didn’t define sexual orientation so much as they gave examples of it.
true but i don’t think they are actually trying to describe sexual orientation. this is a legal definition, for the language of the acts it is proposing to change. so it basically is saying “when you see ‘sexual orientation’ in the act, we mean ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’”
sidenote - i almost never see bills in such plain english. i was surprised because i have read a lot of legislation and much of it is so d e n s e (often, i imagine, to prevent regular people from understanding)
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered.
The problem really boils down to, they didn’t define sexual orientation so much as they gave examples of it.
true but i don’t think they are actually trying to describe sexual orientation. this is a legal definition, for the language of the acts it is proposing to change. so it basically is saying “when you see ‘sexual orientation’ in the act, we mean ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’”
sidenote - i almost never see bills in such plain english. i was surprised because i have read a lot of legislation and much of it is so d e n s e (often, i imagine, to prevent regular people from understanding)