Hate Crime Bill passes House

[Wingshooter]

Didn't see this posted here yet....

House Passes Expanded Hate Crimes Bill - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

“Elections have consequences,†Mr. McCain said.

[extremescene]

This is not a problem unless you intend to go jump a homosexual or an amputee with your buddies, which happens all of the time... otherwise you are safe... no worries.

[USMCJG]

Just another way to divide rather than unite.

[Guest crotalus01]

I dont get it. Dead is dead regardless of the reason for the crime...

[Semiauto]

I believe this legislation has also covered hate speech, which would prohibit a preacher from preaching biblical doctrine against homosexuality.

If this passes, you could be arrested for what you say.

[Kelemvor]

Yeah, I think hate crimes are despicable, but I'm not sure if this legislation is an appropriate response. If it at all infringes on the freedom of speech, then it is definitely no good. I've always said, I hate the KKK and other hate groups, but I'll defend their right to believe what they want, because that is freedom.

One thing to consider though...we differentiate between pre-meditated murder, regular murder, and manslaughter (all just different kinds of killing somebody), so how is adding another classification of circumstances so bad? I'd like to hear more about people's thoughts on this. Try to think past the fact that the Unholy Dem's are seemingly the ones backing this.

[Wingshooter]

I believe this legislation has also covered hate speech, which would prohibit a preacher from preaching biblical doctrine against homosexuality.

If this passes, you could be arrested for what you say.

That is the reason for the opposition. Supporters of the bill claim that won't happen; but once again, it's probably 1000 pages that have never been read.

From the article:

Raising a criticism of the legislation that has circulated among conservatives, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican, said the measure could inhibit freedom of speech and deter religious leaders from discussing their views of moral traditions for fear of being caught up in the law.

“It is just simply wrong to use a bill designed to support our troops to reverse the very freedoms for which they fight,” he said.

...

But Democrats noted that the bill specifically bars prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs.” It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.”

[USMCJG]

Yeah, I think hate crimes are despicable, but I'm not sure if this legislation is an appropriate response. If it at all infringes on the freedom of speech, then it is definitely no good. I've always said, I hate the KKK and other hate groups, but I'll defend their right to believe what they want, because that is freedom.

One thing to consider though...we differentiate between pre-meditated murder, regular murder, and manslaughter (all just different kinds of killing somebody), so how is adding another classification of circumstances so bad? I'd like to hear more about people's thoughts on this. Try to think past the fact that the Unholy Dem's are seemingly the ones backing this.

The reason I have never supported any "Hate Crime" legislation is because it differentiates people of different races, religious affiliations, sexual orientation, etc.. I thought the ultimate goal was that all people would be equal, regardless of sexual, racial, or religious differences. How can we expect the general public to accept that all people are equal when they are clearly not equal in the eyes of the law. As you mentioned, there are several different charges they may be brought against someone based on circumstances. I see no problem with that system and don't know why it shouldn't apply to every victim and defendant. I would be in favor of stiffer penalties for violent crimes, with more time served instead of all these premature paroles. But I don't want sentencing based on various cultural and ethnic differences.

Here is a good video from South Park that pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject: The "Free Eric Cartman Now" Committee - Clips - South Park Studios (You'll probably have to sit through a commercial to see it)

Edited October 10, 2009 by USMCJG

[extremescene]

Let's consider spray painting on a public brick wall, or graffiti. If one spray paints their name on the wall, it is a crime. You have destroyed or defaced public property.

Now let's say that instead of your name, you spray painted "go home fags" on the wall, which happens to sit in a neighborhood where a gay couple just moved in. Technically, you did the same thing... sprayed paint on a wall. However, this is clearly a much more intense situation and is definitely a hate crime.

There is a distinct difference and the 2nd situation demands harsher punishment. The motive was more sinister and there were far more people hurt. If this bill helps authorities punish crimes with these kind of motives I am all for it, no matter what side tries to push it through. Unfortunately, spray painting isn't usually what happens in these types of crimes.

Freedom of speech and preachers preaching against homosexuality will always be protected, in the appropriate venues, just as it is today with the KKK and various other "hate" groups. Hate will always be protected... trying to protect homosexuals from violent attacks isn't going to stop it. This is a good thing.

[USMCJG]

Let's consider spray painting on a public brick wall, or graffiti. If one spray paints their name on the wall, it is a crime. You have destroyed or defaced public property.

Now let's say that instead of your name, you spray painted "go home fags" on the wall, which happens to sit in a neighborhood where a gay couple just moved in. Technically, you did the same thing... sprayed paint on a wall. However, this is clearly a much more intense situation and is definitely a hate crime.

I understand what you are saying. But if instead of painting it on a building what if someone held up a sign with their name on it? What if instead of the sign saying their name it said "go home fags"? Both would be legal and one would hurt some people. By giving the person who tagged the building with the phrase "go home fag" a much harsher penalty than the one who just tagged the building with his name, you are saying that homosexuals are different than other people and deserve different treatment. To me, this is exactly the opposite of what we should be striving for as a civilization.

But if we are going to have hate crime laws then they HAVE to be equally enforced. We have seen many, many cases where racially motivated white on black crime has resulted in hate crime charges. We have also seen many, many cases where racially motivated black on white crime has not resulted in hate crime charges. Both types of cases are racially motivated. But the legal system has consistently decided that motivation is not really important, it's the race, religion, sexual orientation of the victim that matters. I have a major problem with a justice system that assigns different values to different people, regardless of which way that system swings.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Remember AG Holder on the Hate Bill?

[Wingshooter]

I understand what you are saying. But if instead of painting it on a building what if someone held up a sign with their name on it? What if instead of the sign saying their name it said "go home fags"? Both would be legal and one would hurt some people. By giving the person who tagged the building with the phrase "go home fag" a much harsher penalty than the one who just tagged the building with his name, you are saying that homosexuals are different than other people and deserve different treatment. To me, this is exactly the opposite of what we should be striving for as a civilization.

But if we are going to have hate crime laws then they HAVE to be equally enforced. We have seen many, many cases where racially motivated white on black crime has resulted in hate crime charges. We have also seen many, many cases where racially motivated black on white crimld e has not resulted in hate crime charges. Both types of cases are racially motivated. But the legal system has consistently decided that motivation is not really important, it's the race, religion, sexual orientation of the victim that matters. I have a major problem with a justice system that assigns different values to different people, regardless of which way that system swings.

I agree 100%.

[Semiauto]

I agree 100%.

We should also consider our personal liberty. We have the freedom to associate or disassociate based on our own desires. If we do not want to be around a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, we should not have to. If I start a Hooters, and a 67 year old fat lady comes in and wants to be a waitress, I should have the freedom to not hire her based on her age and fatness.

If I am running an oil rig and a transvestite applies to work on the rig, I should be able to decline the application based solely on it's being a transgender. The political correctness in this country is leading to the fragmentation of society, as is multi-culturalsim.

This country is on a slippery slope.

[Kelemvor]

We should also consider our personal liberty. We have the freedom to associate or disassociate based on our own desires. If we do not want to be around a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, we should not have to. If I start a Hooters, and a 67 year old fat lady comes in and wants to be a waitress, I should have the freedom to not hire her based on her age and fatness.

If I am running an oil rig and a transvestite applies to work on the rig, I should be able to decline the application based solely on it's being a transgender. The political correctness in this country is leading to the fragmentation of society, as is multi-culturalsim.

This country is on a slippery slope.

How far would you want people to be able to take that? Should you be able to decline an application to work on your oil rig from a Hispanic person because they are Hispanic? There's a difference in someone not being to properly perform their duties and them just not being the type of person you like.

Crap, I don't want to take us off track, so I'll go back to the above video. That guy that is answering the questions about who the bill will apply to is an idiot. The bill should say that a hate crime is one committed due in part or entirety to a large ideological difference between the two parties. Having it only be for white on black, straight on gay, etc only serves to widen the gap between the groups.

[Mark@Sea]

Call it what you want, this isn't a 'hate crime' bill. It's a 'thought crime' bill. 1984, anyone?

By the way, if it is my company, I should be able to accept or decline applications from anyone. Period. Otherwise, it isn't really mine - the government is just allowing me to manage it for them.

[Semiauto]

How far would you want people to be able to take that? Should you be able to decline an application to work on your oil rig from a Hispanic person because they are Hispanic? There's a difference in someone not being to properly perform their duties and them just not being the type of person you like.

Crap, I don't want to take us off track, so I'll go back to the above video. That guy that is answering the questions about who the bill will apply to is an idiot. The bill should say that a hate crime is one committed due in part or entirety to a large ideological difference between the two parties. Having it only be for white on black, straight on gay, etc only serves to widen the gap between the groups.

If you are truly free, you are free to associate, hire, worship, fire, and communicate with whomever you want. The is the purest definition of freedom. There is not a government telling you how to live your life.

[extremescene]

Not hiring someone simply because they are Hispanic or a transvestite is horrible discrimination and you may be passing up the best worker you've ever had. It should not be your right to decline them based on these factors... sorry. That is an archaic, racist, prejudiced way of thinking that I am ashamed still goes on.

Anyone who actually feels this way has no business expecting any freedom of religion, thought, hate, or anything. You are the ones holding this country back. I am disgusted.

Edited October 10, 2009 by extremescene

[Mark@Sea]

Not hiring someone simply because they are Hispanic or a transvestite is horrible discrimination and you may be passing up the best worker you've ever had. It should not be your right to decline them based on these factors... sorry. That is an archaic, racist, prejudiced way of thinking that I am ashamed still goes on.

Anyone who actually feels this way has no business expecting any freedom of religion, thought, hate, or anything. You are the ones holding this country back. I am disgusted.

You are entitled - and welcome - to your opinion. I certainly don't want it. Is there any way in which I can enhance your disgust?

[analog_kidd]

Not hiring someone simply because they are Hispanic or a transvestite is horrible discrimination and you may be passing up the best worker you've ever had. It should not be your right to decline them based on these factors... sorry. That is an archaic, racist, prejudiced way of thinking that I am ashamed still goes on.

Anyone who actually feels this way has no business expecting any freedom of religion, thought, hate, or anything. You are the ones holding this country back. I am disgusted.

Great, Then the next time you are in Walmart, don't buy your favorite brand of something. Go ahead and get that other brand. We wouldn't want to show favorites.

See how silly that sounds? We should all be able to make choices for whatever our reasons are.

I'm sick of how this country says we have to be tolerant of everyone. We'll if that's true, then absolute tolerance should tolerate someone else's intolerance.

[Guest crotalus01]

The difference I see is that a person has no choice in their race or gender - they have a choice to be gay or transvestite. I should be allowed to discriminate against somone who chooses to be gay or dress like the opposite sex if I do not want them working for me.

[USMCJG]

It seems that we have branched off in to a discussion of Affirmative Action(AA). This is another case of good intentions with unexpected consequences. AA is just another government program intended to reduce racism/sexism that actually expands it. Let's say you own a business that has a position open and you interview three people for the position. One is a white male, one is a black male, and the other is a white female. In this hypothetical situation the white male is by far the most qualified, the white female is the second most qualified, and the black male is the least qualified. As a business owner, you would think that you should be able to hire the most qualified person for the job, but you have government mandated quotas that say you can't do that. So you are forced to hire one of the two less qualified individuals. Let's say that the business owner needs another person of color and hires the black male.

In the governments mission to decrease racism and increase equality in the workplace, they may have just created three new racists. The white male, who knows that he was the most qualified but didn't get the job. The white female, who knows that she was more qualified than the person who got the job. And the business owner, who had to pass up an extremely qualified individual in order to fill a government mandated quota.

It's easy to see from this hypothetical example how good intentions could have bad consequences. And this doesn't even take in to account the fact that AA is itself sexist and racist by it's very definition. It is sexist against males and racist against whites . It is also unfair to tell a free man who owns his own business how many of what kind of individuals he must hire. Affirmative Action, like Hate Crime laws, unintentionally(or perhaps intentionally?) serves to extend racism, sexism, and other isms rather than to eliminate them. JMO

Cliff

[Kelemvor]

The difference I see is that a person has no choice in their race or gender - they have a choice to be gay or transvestite. I should be allowed to discriminate against somone who chooses to be gay or dress like the opposite sex if I do not want them working for me.

A thing to remember is, most GLBT argue that their alternate lifestyle is a genetic predisposition and not a choice.

Back to the freedom stuff, so, if it's my business, true freedom would mean that the gov't couldn't tell me what to do, so long as it doesn't violate other people's freedoms?

Then I could tell a guy that I was interviewing, "Get out of here, I'm not gonna hire a black man." I could tell my cute secretary, "You should get some shorter skirts, and some lower cut blouses." I could tell my IT guy, "One of the guys in the shop told me that you're a queer, if that's true, I'm gonna need you to clean your desk out by 5." I could tell my shop workers, "We've got a big order to complete, boys, next week you're gonna be working five 12 hour shifts. No lunch breaks, and no, I can't pay you overtime." I could fire my welder because he broke his arm playing basketball. Do you see where this is going?

These laws are important. Nobody likes a big fat government, but some law is necessary.

[Semiauto]

A thing to remember is, most GLBT argue that their alternate lifestyle is a genetic predisposition and not a choice.

Back to the freedom stuff, so, if it's my business, true freedom would mean that the gov't couldn't tell me what to do, so long as it doesn't violate other people's freedoms?

Then I could tell a guy that I was interviewing, "Get out of here, I'm not gonna hire a black man." I could tell my cute secretary, "You should get some shorter skirts, and some lower cut blouses." I could tell my IT guy, "One of the guys in the shop told me that you're a queer, if that's true, I'm gonna need you to clean your desk out by 5." I could tell my shop workers, "We've got a big order to complete, boys, next week you're gonna be working five 12 hour shifts. No lunch breaks, and no, I can't pay you overtime." I could fire my welder because he broke his arm playing basketball. Do you see where this is going?

These laws are important. Nobody likes a big fat government, but some law is necessary.

If you were free, you could do what you postulated. You would also find yourself out of business due to a lack of employees. Freedom also extends to the workers, and they are free to quit and find another job, quit and start their own business, or comply. Regulation begats regulation. And it eventually leads to domination.

[TNTitan]

Not hiring someone simply because they are Hispanic or a transvestite is horrible discrimination and you may be passing up the best worker you've ever had. It should not be your right to decline them based on these factors... sorry. That is an archaic, racist, prejudiced way of thinking that I am ashamed still goes on.

Anyone who actually feels this way has no business expecting any freedom of religion, thought, hate, or anything. You are the ones holding this country back. I am disgusted.

hmm... I wasnt going to hire that nazi tranny hooker to be my Director of PR, but maybe I should reconsider?

[USMCJG]

hmm... I wasnt going to hire that nazi tranny hooker to be my Director of PR, but maybe I should reconsider?

Nice!