Don't worry its still safe to beat up gays

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
White House threatens to veto hate-crimes bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.

Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.

The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.

In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no date has been set for a vote.
Addressing freedom of speech

Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on clergy who preach against homosexual behavior.

"We believe that this legislation will criminalize our freedom of speech and our ability to preach the gospel," said Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland.

Supporters disagree. The bill, they say, applies only to violent crime and, in fact, specifically addresses freedom-of-speech issues.

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution," the bill says.
Intense debate on the House floor

House representatives got into a heated exchange Thursday as they debated the bill.

"They [hate crimes] are more serious than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but an entire group," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York.

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida, said it is unfair to single out specific groups for protection under the law.

"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.

Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.

"Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.

If President Bush vetoes the bill, it would mark the third veto of his presidency. His second came Tuesday, when he vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.




I read on yahoo 14% of all hate crimes are committed against people based on sexual orientation. Which is equal to the amount against minorities. They just dont want to offend their base so they will allow certain groups to remain targets, especially in areas where they still looked at as second class citizens
 
Matthew-Shepard150.jpg


Please, kill me all over again. It's still safe!
 
Crime is crime.

Every citizen should have the same rights under the law. Purporting to know the criminal's motivation is 'thought police' nonsense.
 
Sweet, I better get my gay beatings in while they're still legal!

...

wait... what?

Ah... the slow triumph of emotionalism and feeling over reason. Some days, I just kick back and say to myself "Why fight it? Especially when I could think of a way to profit off it... Maybe it is time I write an anti-Bush book."
 
But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.

WHAT?! NOOOOO!

They just dont want to offend their base so they will allow certain groups to remain targets

Er... yeah. I think I am done talking to you. You should be ashamed of saying stuff like this.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Ah... the slow triumph of emotionalism and feeling over reason.[/QUOTE]

Religion?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What a patently false subject line. You should really edit that.[/QUOTE]



not really, if gays were covered in federal hate crime laws then even if the case gets pushed under the table in a specific state, the federal courts would still be able to seek justice.



of course you could give me a reason why we should not include them in the federal hate crime legislation, I am sure it will be a very caring and sensitive response.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']not really, if gays were covered in federal hate crime laws then even if the case gets pushed under the table in a specific state, the federal courts would still be able to seek justice.[/quote]

Please elaborate when assaults against gays are "pushed under the table"...unless you are talking about harsher punishment for an assault on someone who is gay compared to someone who isn't.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']of course you could give me a reason why we should not include them in the federal hate crime legislation, I am sure it will be a very caring and sensitive response.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, we call can do without the condescending attitude that because some (including myself) oppose hate crime legislation, we are somehow not caring or sensitive.

Secondly, I don't think there should be any "hate crime" legislation in any case, so it has nothing to do with gays specifically. I don't see why violence against certain groups is more reprehensible than violence against other groups or individuals. And I don't see why the government feels it necessary to make it an extra-bad crime if someone has disgusting attitudes towards certain groups.

There are plenty more things I can elaborate on if you want to really discuss this, but please, your attitude shouldn't be what it was when you wrote the above if you want a real discussion.
 
The justification for hate crime legislation seems to be that when a hate crime is committed, it is not intended to just harm the individual, but the group as well. Example: beating up a couple black kids in order to prevent more black people from coming into the neighborhood.
 
In a non red state such as the almighty California, you are still charged with a hate crime if you beat up on Gays.
 
[quote name='evanft']The justification for hate crime legislation seems to be that when a hate crime is committed, it is not intended to just harm the individual, but the group as well. Example: beating up a couple black kids in order to prevent more black people from coming into the neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

I thought you had me ignored? Oh well, so much for good times eh? ;)

I understand the justification perfectly well. It certainly is a reasonable argument with a laudable goal (preventing intimidation of a group of people), but one I believe is misguided.

Answer me this:

1. If jocks at school beat up a nerd to intimidate all nerds in the school, is said assault a hate crime?

2. Why are some groups more important to protect from intimidation than others? And why are these groups determined by pandering politicians for political gain?

3. Why are existing laws making assault a serious crime not enough? Why is it "safe to beat up gays" when it's against the law and the law is enforced?

4. Why is there a need to punish someone's [admittedly despicable] hatred toward a group? Thoughts are not crimes in this country. Surely judges can take into account motivations when sentencing, just like in cold-blooded murder?
 
[quote name='evanft']The justification for hate crime legislation seems to be that when a hate crime is committed, it is not intended to just harm the individual, but the group as well. Example: beating up a couple black kids in order to prevent more black people from coming into the neighborhood.[/quote]

That's a non-issue. That is not how the crime is addressed in the law. The only legal standard for a hate crime is that you chose your victim based on the 'protected' characteristics.
 
[quote name='Raynre']Isn't any crime technically a hate crime?[/QUOTE]
Thank you, that's about how I feel on this issue. A deranged person beating up a person because they're gay is just as terrible a crime as a deranged person randomly beating up a person on the street because he didn't like their face. We have a jury system that's supposed to determine the punishments to fit the crimes.
 
Let's just make it illegal to hate homosexuals. Then we can make a law requiring you to offer a free blow job to any gay person you meet, just to make things fair and make up for historical transgressions against their group's civil rights.
 
Also, given that I still respect the whole states vs. feds dichotomy, I don't feel particularly good about giving the Feds more control over traditionally state-level crimes, especially if they perceive that membership in one of the protected groups was even part of the motive.
 
bread's done
Back
Top