Black Ministers vs Gay Rights...

wavydaby · 05-02-2007, 09:34 PM

Because a simple crime can be blown out of proportion.
It is creating an environment where people can say, you created a hate crime because you are xyz race and i am xyz race. Mean while, I hit you on the head and stole your car because I wanted the car, not because I this and you were that. The burden of proof is on me to prove I only wanted your car.
Singling out one minority to be protected is wrong. ALL people in no matter what hate filled situation should be protected.
That includes situations where a white on white crime was commited purely because one white person what hated by another person for WHATEVER REASON.

TommyO · 05-02-2007, 09:50 PM

The legal system works on a simple premise, Innocent until proven guilty. There is no burdon of proof on the accused, the burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt. You must understand the legal system before you argue the law. If someone were stupid enough to argue

"I hit you on the head and stole your car because I wanted the car, not because I this and you were that"

That would be an admission of guilt so if Hate Crime laws create those sorts of defences I bet every cop, crown attorney and judge would be more than happy that they existed. Probably not the right wing Christians though, they would be to busy thinking of poorly thought out reasons that Hate Crime laws are bad.

Sunta · 05-02-2007, 10:13 PM

sexually confused people

I hope you're not referring to Gays, here.

Sunta · 05-02-2007, 10:31 PM

I certainly believe physical actions such as the gay bashing (physical/body) attacks should be considered hate crimes, but when it begins to muzzle the voice of religious leaders, to the point of possibly being prosecuted for preaching their churches doctrine, I refuse to support it.

You have not read the legislation.

After you read the legislation, come back and we can discuss it rationally.

TommyO · 05-03-2007, 07:01 AM

I didn't know that James Dobson was against this, In that case I think I should re-think my opinion.
Leatha, can you not find a credible source, I doubt very much that you do any research outside of the Christian right because you may be required to read information that challenges your view. I know how hard that can be on you.

Once agian the Christian right remains firmly planted beside the Nazis and the KKK . You must be very proud.

wavydaby · 05-03-2007, 08:56 AM

Funny thing, is, Im a "Christian Liberal", and I am against this.

Sunta · 05-03-2007, 12:28 PM

In my opinion, James Dobson is a very credible resource.

ROFL!

How about a non-biased resource, such as the actual bill?

Sunta · 05-03-2007, 12:34 PM

I was never considered 'Christian right' until I came here and seen the viciousness of the Liberal Left.

If by "vicious" you mean being for non-violence, and standing for strict penalties for hate crimes, then ok.

But I think the real vicious ones are the ones who are for hate crimes, like the "Christians" who are against this bill.

It's the very summit of hypocrisy.

If you really thought about it, do you think Jesus would not want minorities to have extra protection from violence, since they are often the target of violence due to their race/sexual orientation?

As much as I am frustrated with Christians, I could never live with myself if I ever voted against a bill that protected them from violent crime because of their religion.

So who's the vicious one?

wavydaby · 05-03-2007, 01:28 PM

It also can potentially over step states rights.
If a state prosecutor looks at a case and does not see a hate crime case, the feds can step in and make it a hate crime case.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~c110T8xVCD::
If the state prosecutor is a bigot, well, the feds stepping in would be warrented. If the state porsecutor is doing his job and someone wants to make headline news, they can step in too.
Invidual states already have laws on the books that they are enforcing

wavydaby · 05-03-2007, 01:30 PM

Maybe I should place an addendum, that I am against over creation of laws by the federal gov, where the states already have laws in place

lisah25 · 05-03-2007, 01:30 PM

Does anyone have a link to actual amendment? I'm having a hard time finding it.

wavydaby · 05-03-2007, 02:13 PM

In my post before last.. pg 2

Marimaru · 05-04-2007, 04:05 PM

wavybaby, that link just says file not found for me...

My understanding of the bill is that it is extending current hate laws to include gay people, but I have not done much research on this, so please correct me if I am wrong.

If that is the case, I think the bill should be passed, since there are already hate crime laws in place.

The idea of hate crime laws however, I am against. Murder is murder, and the reason behind it shouldn't really determine the penalty for it. If that means we need to bump up the level of punishment for stuff in general, fine, whatever, but murder is murder, assault is assault, etc.

I hope that makes sense, and my idea of what is going on is somewhere remotely close to accurate, lol

396power · 05-05-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavydaby

I dont like hate crime laws. I think they are unecessary. We already have laws that are supposed to punish people who do things like those that savagely killed Matthew.
We should enforce the laws we have.
What about a person who hits me because I am fat?
Should they be charged a hate crime? I dont see that covered on the bill.
And yes, as a child I was hit and picked on because I was fat.
No special coverage there...

I like what Jill said. and anyway all crime is hate crime. Just punish it the way it is now. if you kill some poor Black man and you are in the kkk, (lets say you pull him behind your truck). You can not get anymore leathel injection than what is enough to kill you! So what is the purpose of this legislation. Even if it is a smaller crime there is already a punishment that fits that crime!

Carlene · 05-06-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marimaru

My understanding of the bill is that it is extending current hate laws to include gay people, but I have not done much research on this, so please correct me if I am wrong.

That is it in a nutshell.

If it's a bad idea to give extra protection under the law to gays and Lesbians, why was it not a bad idea to pass the legislation in the first place, when it only protected blacks, Muslims, etc? Everyone seemed to think it was a great idea then.