Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
so there's this hate crimes bill in front of Congress. we've been through hate crimes before, and i personally have some mixed feelings about their usefulness and maintain that what is truly discriminatory is the effort put into making some groups worthy of protection and others not.
however, this article is slanted in just the right way that it teases out the issue that i think is also an undercurrent of the same sex marriage debate. namely, if homophobia becomes the cultural equivalent of racism, that is, it is illegal and culturally unacceptable, to discriminate (even in thought alone) against gay people, is this tantamount to religious discrimination?
so would it be keeping with our freedoms of religion to allow someone to fire someone because they are gay? to deny someone housing?
we're not talking about violence. we're talking about the right of someone to say, "i don't like you and i think you're disgusting and immoral and i don't want you near my children and i am going to do whatever i can to remind you of this." is that a right we have? we would obviously have a big problem if what was said about gays by some religiously conservative folks was said about blacks or Jews, but are these people protected (so to speak) because they're simply living out their faith? do people have a right to speak out against same-sex "behavior"?
here's an editorial on the subject:
however, this article is slanted in just the right way that it teases out the issue that i think is also an undercurrent of the same sex marriage debate. namely, if homophobia becomes the cultural equivalent of racism, that is, it is illegal and culturally unacceptable, to discriminate (even in thought alone) against gay people, is this tantamount to religious discrimination?
Social Conservatives Blast Hate-Crime Bill, Saying It Will Limit Free Speech
Social conservatives say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if hate crimes legislation now headed to the Senate becomes law.
By James Osborne
FOXNews.com
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A Senate hate crimes bill that would extend federal protection to gay and transgender victims is rousing the ire of social conservatives who say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if it becomes law.
"In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault -- putting someone in fear of their safety -- what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?" said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Council, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.
"It elevates homosexuality to the same protective category as race. It's all part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda," Staver said.
For much of the last decade gay rights activists have been fighting for inclusion within the federal hate crimes law, which places greater penalties on crimes that are committed based on race, ethnicity and religion. Social conservatives, including former President George W. Bush, have fought the legislation on the grounds it could be used to prosecute religious groups who say homosexuality is morally wrong.
But with Democrats now controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, gay rights activists are confident the law will pass and President Obama will sign it. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 249-175.
"This is one of the most supportive environments we've had," said Thomas Howard, Jr., programs director for the Matthew Shepard Foundation, an advocacy group named for the gay University of Wyoming student whose 1998 murder became a rallying point for homosexuals.
"The issue is when someone is targeted as a direct result of who they are. This isn't about telling people what they can and can not say."
Frederick Lawrence, a law professor at George Washington University, said there is nothing within the language of the hate crimes bill that would allow for the prosecution of individuals who simply speak out against a particular sexual or ethnic group.
"The only language that would be criminalized is language that would be meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement," he said. "Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, can not be criminalized."
But that is doing little to calm conservative bloggers, who are outraged by the possibility that a suspect acquitted of a crime in state court can be retried in federal court if the case becomes categorized as a hate crime.
"That is true and it's not unique to the hate crimes arena," said Lawrence. "There is an exception to double jeopardy called the dual sovereignty doctrine. But the Department of Justice has a very strict set of regulations when they can retry someone."
During the debate on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., angered gay rights activists by claiming Shepard was murdered in a robbery, and not because he was gay.
"(The) hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," Foxx said.
The congresswoman later apologized, calling the word hoax "a poor choice of words," according to The Associated Press.
In 2004 the ABC television news program 20/20 ran a story in which Shepard's murderers said they killed the 21-year-old for drugs and money in a robbery gone wrong, and not because he was gay -- contradicting the testimony of some witnesses at his murder trial.
The piece went on to portray Shepard as a troubled individual and included an interview with a Wyoming police detective who said he believed the murder was not based on Shepard's sexual orientation.
"It's something we hear quite a bit," Howard said. "I'd like to ask (Foxx) if she has read the trial transcript. Certain individuals completely changed their stories."
so would it be keeping with our freedoms of religion to allow someone to fire someone because they are gay? to deny someone housing?
we're not talking about violence. we're talking about the right of someone to say, "i don't like you and i think you're disgusting and immoral and i don't want you near my children and i am going to do whatever i can to remind you of this." is that a right we have? we would obviously have a big problem if what was said about gays by some religiously conservative folks was said about blacks or Jews, but are these people protected (so to speak) because they're simply living out their faith? do people have a right to speak out against same-sex "behavior"?
here's an editorial on the subject:
EDITORIAL: Thought crimes
Democrats are making it illegal to think certain things. The House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday that extends federal so-called hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation. This is a move to provide special status for specific groups. It is also unnecessary. If a miscreant kills or rapes somebody, he should be prosecuted for murder or rape. What he might have been thinking is beside the point.
Hate-crimes legislation obscures the fact that the underlying crime is already prosecutable under existing laws. The bill is named after Matthew Shepard, a homosexual who was beaten to death near Laramie, Wyo., in 1998. The case caught national attention, which accelerated the push to establish new hate crimes - but it serves as a fitting example for why new legislation is unnecessary. Mr. Shepard's attackers were successfully prosecuted without homosexuals being established as a special protected class by the federal government.
Current federal hate-crimes law already covers the use or threat of force based on race, color, religion or national origin. Proponents of adding "gender identity" falsely argue that it is needed because these crimes have become more prevalent in recent years. According to FBI data, reported attacks have remained constant - between 7,000 and 9,000 a year nationwide - since 1992.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, told an editorial board meeting at The Washington Times that the hate-crimes bill makes him "want to throw up," and noted that it doesn't make sense to prosecute "what we think [criminals] were thinking as opposed to what they did."
Mr. Boehner's point is right on the mark. But the motivation isn't about punishing crime as much as it is about controlling certain thoughts and views. Once homosexuals become a special class protected by hate-crime legislation, the back door is open to prosecuting those who speak out against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Yesterday's House vote was really about creating thought crimes to further the liberal agenda.