Common cause for Christians and Gays

[Texas Lynn]

Welcome back, Texas Lynn ...have been wondering where you got to.

Check out the "Where Is Everyone ...?" thread.

Thanks, I was pulling a Joe Hill.

 

[D'Ann]

I'm glad that this thingie link doesn't work.

 

[CaDan]

1. Hide tags are available here. I suggest using them rather than broken links.

2. Backdoor accusations of lying are often flames. Please refrain from such behavior.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Practically, when right-wing Christians have had opportunities to oppose violence against LGBTs they have failed to do so. Examples include antibullying programs they have opposed.

You have accused me of flaming. Why?

BTW, How is the following not baiting and flaming?

"In our denomination are compassionate Christians. 'Compassionate conservatives' is an oxymoron. The Lord we serve is liberal in every way possible, abounding with peace and justice." -United Methodist Bishop Felton May

 

[Texas Lynn]

You have accused me of flaming. Why?

?

BTW, How is the following not baiting and flaming?

Ask the staff who ruled three times that it wasn't.

 

[Kerwin]

Practically, when some right-wing Christians have had opportunities to oppose violence against LGBTs they have failed to do so. Examples include anti-bullying programs they have opposed.

God commands us not to show favoritism to anyone and the hate laws are not only a blatant violation of that command but they also violate the U.S. Constitution’s command to provide equal protection under the law. I ask you whether a homosexual man has a more intrinsic worth than a non-homosexual man then if not why should the one beating them up receive a different sentence for the same crime. Sounds like the lawmakers are a bunch of bigots.

 

[Texas Lynn]

God commands us not to show favoritism to anyone and the hate laws are not only a blatant violation of that command but they also violate the U.S. Constitution’s command to provide equal protection under the law. I ask you whether a homosexual man has a more intrinsic worth than a non-homosexual man then if not why should the one beating them up receive a different sentence for the same crime. Sounds like the lawmakers are a bunch of bigots.

I think what you suggest is not what occurs. Hate Crime laws merely provide prosecutors a tool to obtain convictions in cases where blatant crimes of bigotry occur. They also provide notice such things are unacceptable. That's all.

 

[Kerwin]

I think what you suggest is not what occurs. Hate Crime laws merely provide prosecutors a tool to obtain convictions in cases where blatant crimes of bigotry occur. They also provide notice such things are unacceptable. That's all.

Sorry they add time to a crime which means it is unequal treatment. Your argument seems to be that some motives for the same crime are deserving of greater punishment. So according to you certain motives make murder and assault more justified than others. It's ok to murder her but don't call her a female homosexual while doing so though you can say she is sexually loose and is a female dog.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Sorry they add time to a crime which means it is unequal treatment. Your argument seems to be that some motives for the same crime are deserving of greater punishment. So according to you certain motives make murder and assault more justified than others. It's ok to murder her but don't call her a female homosexual while doing so though you can say she is sexually loose and is a female dog.

And some motives for the same crime are deserving of greater punishment, that is why there is a difference between accidental homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder and first degree murder. In all 4 cases someone ends up dead by the hand of another but the difference among these crimes is the motive.

 

[OllieFranz]

God commands us not to show favoritism to anyone and the hate laws are not only a blatant violation of that command but they also violate the U.S. Constitution’s command to provide equal protection under the law. I ask you whether a homosexual man has a more intrinsic worth than a non-homosexual man then if not why should the one beating them up receive a different sentence for the same crime. Sounds like the lawmakers are a bunch of bigots.

I think what you suggest is not what occurs. Hate Crime laws merely provide prosecutors a tool to obtain convictions in cases where blatant crimes of bigotry occur. They also provide notice such things are unacceptable. That's all.

Sorry they add time to a crime which means it is unequal treatment. Your argument seems to be that some motives for the same crime are deserving of greater punishment. So according to you certain motives make murder and assault more justified than others. It's ok to murder her but don't call her a female homosexual while doing so though you can say she is sexually loose and is a female dog.

Sorry, but you are just wrong.

First, hate crime legislation does not discriminate against straights (or whites, or men, or Christians) by protecting one group from another. They protect everyone; their basis is not the orientation (or race, or sex or religion) of the victim. It is not only gays (or blacks, or women, or Jews) that it protects, it is anyone who is terrorized on the basis of his (or her) orientation (or race, or sex or religion).

Second, hate crimes are a variation on incitement to riot crimes. The speech itself is not the crime, but the intent to use violence to terrorize a person and intimidate a whole community which is the crime.

Third, it is not an added punishment for a violent crime, it is a separate crime with its own punishment. The reason prosecution for it is only triggered in conjunction with a violent crime is because, like incitement to riot, until the expected outburst occurs, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the words are intended to have the result of terrorism.

As words, without being able to prove that terrorism is the desired effect, the words are protected speech. But speech loses the protection when real, actionable harm occurs as a direct result of those words: Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, inciting a mob to violence, lynching a man and the burning a cross on his neighbors yard yelling "You're next!" before returning the next day to lynch him as well....

 

[Texas Lynn]

Sorry they add time to a crime which means it is unequal treatment. Your argument seems to be that some motives for the same crime are deserving of greater punishment. So according to you certain motives make murder and assault more justified than others. It's ok to murder her but don't call her a female homosexual while doing so though you can say she is sexually loose and is a female dog.

Actually, gender, or perceived gender, is protected by Hate Crime laws.

 

[Kerwin]

Actually, gender, or perceived gender, is protected by Hate Crime laws.

Are you saying the women would also be covered by the Hate Crime Law as I have certainly not heard that?

 

[Kerwin]

Sorry, but you are just wrong.

First, hate crime legislation does not discriminate against straights (or whites, or men, or Christians) by protecting one group from another. They protect everyone; their basis is not the orientation (or race, or sex or religion) of the victim. It is not only gays (or blacks, or women, or Jews) that it protects, it is anyone who is terrorized on the basis of his (or her) orientation (or race, or sex or religion).

Second, hate crimes are a variation on incitement to riot crimes. The speech itself is not the crime, but the intent to use violence to terrorize a person and intimidate a whole community which is the crime.

Third, it is not an added punishment for a violent crime, it is a separate crime with its own punishment. The reason prosecution for it is only triggered in conjunction with a violent crime is because, like incitement to riot, until the expected outburst occurs, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the words are intended to have the result of terrorism.

As words, without being able to prove that terrorism is the desired effect, the words are protected speech. But speech loses the protection when real, actionable harm occurs as a direct result of those words: Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, inciting a mob to violence, lynching a man and the burning a cross on his neighbors yard yelling "You're next!" before returning the next day to lynch him as well....

Intimidation is a separate crime in at least some states.

 

[OllieFranz]

Intimidation is a separate crime in at least some states.

OK then. Think of Hate crime as a variant on intimidation crime. (Though I still think it is closer to Incitement to Riot.)

BTW in my the law against "intimidation" calls the intimidation "terroristic threats" (And has for many decades -- it is not "bowing down to the gay agenda" or even an over-reaction to 9/11)

 

[Kerwin]

OK then. Think of Hate crime as a variant on intimidation crime. (Though I still think it is closer to Incitement to Riot.)

BTW in my the law against "intimidation" calls the intimidation "terroristic threats" (And has for many decades -- it is not "bowing down to the gay agenda" or even an over-reaction to 9/11)

The problem with that reasoning is that there are only certain protected classes for the Hate Laws while the intimidation laws protect everyone and therefore are in line with the equal protection under the law.


I certainly support intimidation laws or for that matter incitement to riot one but want them applied as equally to all people as possible. The Hate Laws do not do that.

 

[OllieFranz]

The problem with that reasoning is that there are only certain protected classes for the Hate Laws while the intimidation laws protect everyone and therefore are in line with the equal protection under the law.


I certainly support intimidation laws or for that matter incitement to riot one but want them applied as equally to all people as possible. The Hate Laws do not do that.

Exactly how do they not do that? they protect you from terroristic attack based on your (percieved or actual) race, gender, religion or orientation just as much as they would a black, Jewish lesbian.

They do not protect you against an ordinary mugger, even if he is a different race, religion, etc. But they are not designed for that purpose and do not protect "minorities" from ordinary muggers, either.

Or are you saying that you don't feel the protection of the law because you don't feel yourself to be in danger from anyone who is trying to terrorize you on the basis of any of the protected classes? That just because the effects of the hate speech affect "minorities" more, laws criminalizing such action protect those "minorities" more than they do you? Would you strike down rape laws because women are not arrested and convicted for raping men at the same rate that men are arrested and convicted for raping women? So rape laws are not applied to all people equally?

If this is not what you are saying, then please clarify.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Are you saying the women would also be covered by the Hate Crime Law as I have certainly not heard that?

If they were targeted as women. The categories of classes of persons victimized covered in hate crime laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but all generally include race and gender. As to why you haven't heard that, I wonder if your source of information is such things as the right-wing "news" sources World Net Daily and Faux News. I read such things, too for information but also read mainstream sources and ideologically opposed sources to that as well. Also, there's pretty much no controversy about hate crime laws concerning race and gender but there is about sexual orientation. It's like the old saying, "If dog bites man, it's not news; but if man bites dog..."

 

[Kerwin]

Exactly how do they not do that? they protect you from terroristic attack based on your (perceived or actual) race, gender, religion or orientation just as much as they would a black, Jewish lesbian.

They do not since I am not a protected class according to the Hate Laws which makes me at best a second class citizen. I suppose someone could call me names that are covered by the Hate law while violating my rights and I would be covered but those names would be false and therefore not apply to me.

Or are you saying that you don't feel the protection of the law because you don't feel yourself to be in danger from anyone who is trying to terrorize you on the basis of any of the protected classes?

That is a rather naïve statement. In real life anyone can be a victim of bulling and intimidation for a wide variety of reasons including the victimizer just feels like it. Oh I get it you do not consider me to be worth protecting from such actions as I am not a member of a favored protected class.. In other words you are showing prejudice in your opinion.

Would you strike down rape laws because women are not arrested and convicted for raping men at the same rate that men are arrested and convicted for raping women? So rape laws are not applied to all people equally?

There has been complaints about rape laws being biased in their application which may not mean the actual law is the problem but merely the interpretation. Overall though rape is hard to prove and many people do not believe a man can be forced to have sex with a woman without his consent. I suppose men should learn to scream if a women gets too aggressive.

 

[OllieFranz]

I only asked about the way you feel and made the comparison to rape because that was the only way that I could see you still claim that the laws are not applied equally.

Now I see that you are still claiming that the law only covers "protected classes" and that "protected classes" are minorities. How many times do you have to be told that that is not the case.

"Protected classes" (a phrase that does not appear in the laws themselves) does not refer to Blacks, but to racial prejudice of any kind in any direction. It does not refer to Jews, but to religious hatred of any kind in any direction. It does not refer to women, but to gender discrimination of any kind in any direction. It does not refer to gays, but to bashing of any kind based on sexual orientation, real or perceived.

Laws involving "protected classes" such as hate crime laws and anti-discrimination laws say nothing about "protected classes" they instead list the classes that they affect. And they list them as categories, not groups. Discrimination is forbidden "on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation," not "against Blacks, Jews, women and gays." It is similar with the Hate Crime laws.

If they had been in effect at the time, the blacks who rioted in LA a few years back and attacked an Italian-American truck driver believing him to be Jewish would have been subject to Hate Crime laws. Even if they knew that he was not Jewish, and attacked him just because he was white, they would have been subject to the Hate Crimes laws.

If, after a series of gay-bashings and killings, a gang of gays decide to riot and in the course of the riot, they grab you, and attack you as a "breeder" they would be subject to the Hate Crime laws.

Look at the laws themselves and how they are worded and stop whining about something that is simply a lie that you have been told.

 

[DrummerWench]

Exactly how do they not do that? they protect you from terroristic attack based on your (percieved or actual) race, gender, religion or orientation just as much as they would a black, Jewish lesbian.
...

They do not since I am not a protected class according to the Hate Laws which makes me at best a second class citizen. I suppose someone could call me names that are covered by the Hate law while violating my rights and I would be covered but those names would be false and therefore not apply to me.
...

*is puzzled*
If you are a human person, you are a member of some protected class(es). If a hate-filled sniper is out there targeting people who are (or the sniper thinks they are) white, male, Christian, heterosexuals, and shoots you--that's just as much a hate crime as targeting the black, Jewish lesbian. If someone targets you because of your perceived race, gender, religion, or orientation whatever that race, gender, religion, or orientation may be, regardless of minority or majority status, that is a hate crime.