Hate crime bill passes House

[Marcia]

This oft-used illustration is not true. CLICK HERE

Good to know this - thanks for the info. I've never used this illustration but have heard it numerous times.

Of course, I do believe that as morals go down in the culture, that people, unlike frogs, adapt to it and eventually most go along with it. I think we have examples of this in the Bible as well as in history.

It's also true that if something is repeated often enough, people begin to either believe it or accept it.

 

[LeBuick]

Hate crime legislation is stupid legislation...


Hate crimes are a judicial train wreck because...

1. They elevate the life of one person (be it black, gay, handicapped, left-handed, white, whatever) over another. Generally, the "empowered" party is worth less than the "powerless."
2. They are essentially crimes of thought, which cannot be proven. We can only prove crimes of action...and if we'd enforce the laws already there, we wouldn't have to crawl around inside someone's brain, looking for prejudices.
3. They are unequally enforced. In Alabama, you will never see a black-on-white crime listed as a hate crime." The reverse is not true. I am for equal justice under the law. A white man who kills a black man should be penalized the same as if the race of the victim/perp were reversed.
4. They clog up the justice system needlessly. If someone's on trial for life, why try separate the hate-crime separately?
5. They begin erosion of rights: now instances of offensive speech is considered "hate crime." If you preach against homosexuality, get ready...you're next.
6. They are, at their core, unneccessary. If you gave people who murdered, for instance, the death penalty, no hate crime legislation would be needed. If you castrated rapists, that would just about do it right there.
7. It is a logical fallacy. Who ever commits "love crimes?" All crime comes from hate.

You are right, if man had a fair sense of judgment we wouldn't need these types of laws. However, in the south a white person could hang a black person from a tree and not see one day in jail vs a black person would get killed for looking at a white woman. Since the local laws failed at justice, the feds had to pass civil rights laws.

So here we are again, I don't condone the g@y lifestyle but they are still people created by God who deserve to be treated as such. However, as long as we have people who feel the murder of a g@y person is a hoax, we need these laws.

 

[sag38]

When was the last time that someone got off for killing a gay person simply becuase of hate? When was the last time that someone got off for killing someone of another race simply because of hate? You are living too far in the past LeBuick. Last time I checked murder was murder no matter the motive. We don't need hate crime laws. All we need is for the current laws to be enforced. Liberals love to make victims of their constituents.

 

[Robert Snow]

I agree. A person belonging to any minority can smack us, steal our purse/wallet, mug us, or make a pass at us and if we react the way we should have the right to do, it will be labeled a 'hate crime'. We dare not touch them or even yell at them.

I am getting sick of hearing the word 'discrimination' used where there is none!

Our freedoms are slipping away faster than I thought...

When will the government start collecting guns house to house so a man cannot even protect his family? The guarantees of the constitution will be stripped, or changed, one by one until they are useless to us.

God will be our only protection. Even so, Lord, Jesus, come...

I hope you are wrong, but I fear you may be correct. We should not be surprised that the ungodly crowd will not rest until we are forced to worship God in a sound-proof, locked building for fear that any trace of God's righteous judgment on sin might reach their ears.

The one good thing about this type of legislation, might be that is separates God's preachers from the others.

 

[Jedi Knight]

This oft-used illustration is not true. CLICK HERE

From Wikipedia

The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out.

The story is generally told in a figurative context, with the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic loss.:type:

 

[rbell]

You are right, if man had a fair sense of judgment we wouldn't need these types of laws. However, in the south a white person could hang a black person from a tree and not see one day in jail vs a black person would get killed for looking at a white woman. Since the local laws failed at justice, the feds had to pass civil rights laws.

So here we are again, I don't condone the g@y lifestyle but they are still people created by God who deserve to be treated as such. However, as long as we have people who feel the murder of a g@y person is a hoax, we need these laws.

Sorry, but you still have a logical flaw. If one law isn't enforced...how does passing another law change things?

Besides...you still totally ignore how this is unconstitutional...

• Crimes of thought cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• "Equal protection under the law" goes away with hate crimes.
• Hate crimes can be used to religiously discriminate (hence the fierce opposition to adding "sexual orientation" to the books).

And I keep coming back to this: If you have some psychopaths who think murdering someone based on their orientation is OK...news flash: It's already illegal.

 

[rbell]

From Wikipedia

The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out.

In addition, boiling a frog based on his race, gender, or sexual orientation is just flat out wrong.

 

[Jedi Knight]

In addition, boiling a frog based on his race, gender, or sexual orientation is just flat out wrong.

Funny! Next time I will use the "BIG BANG" for illustration! :laugh:

 

[LeBuick]

Sorry, but you still have a logical flaw. If one law isn't enforced...how does passing another law change things?

Simple, one set of laws are locally enforced while other laws are enforced federally. Take civil rights and the deep south, a black man could be hung from a tree and there was no white jury in the south that would ever convict them (local laws). It was finally stopped with federal laws. The civil rights act made it a federal crime which means it would be tried in federal and not local courts. That is the only way the black man found justice.

Besides...you still totally ignore how this is unconstitutional...

According to the constitution congress can make laws. How can any law congress makes be unconstitutional? That is the problem, you guys read one article in the constitution and totally ignore the rest.

 

[dcorbett]

Even though this bill might not include free speech against homosexuality, I have no doubt that could be included some time soon. Homosexuals won't be satisfied until they have removed ALL our rights to say anything against this perversion.

AMEN! They are winning small battles everywhere, and the American people who know right from wrong are being harnessed and punished for doing he right.

God help us as this country is being guided and directed by satanic forces.

 

[dcorbett]

After working in law enforcement for 23 years, I can say this:

Every violent crime could be a hate crime.
Hate is not exclusive to any particular group.

Christians get persecuted daily by those fringe groups, and what is our recourse?

 

[BigBossman]

This is a guess but they may have been pursuing the hate crime just in case the other convictions were overturned. This is not an uncommon tactic.

Actually, this was after they were given their sentence. G.W. Bush was asked about hate crimes regarding this case during his 2000 presidential campaign. I thought his point about them receiving the maximum penalty was well made.

 

[rbell]

According to the constitution congress can make laws. How can any law congress makes be unconstitutional? That is the problem, you guys read one article in the constitution and totally ignore the rest.

Oh, that's right...congress cannot mess up.

Yet you advocate an activist court. Make up your mind.

The difference between me and you is that I read the Constitution for what it is. You read it for what you wish to make it. Being blunt, my method is better, safer, and more stable for this country than yours. It also better guarantees our freedoms.

 

[OldRegular]

While we're being distracted by fly flu, the plot thickens against our freedoms::tear:


U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill that Bush opposed -- On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

It apparently includes protection for pedophiles also but not US Military. But what can one expect from the leftist democrats. This bill if passed into law will be used to persecute true Christians.

 

[OldRegular]

Sometimes statutes are interpreted in unexpected ways by the courts. This bill also needs to be read in the context of the section of the U.S.C. that it amends.


The text of the bill was radically altered since it was first introduced. The bill that passed is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1913rh.txt.pdf

This part is interesting:

REQUIREMENT.—No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be under taken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that—

‘‘(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

‘‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that—
‘‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

‘‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
‘‘(C) the State does not object to the FederalGovernment assuming jurisdiction; or
​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

‘‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.​

Does that mean that the feds can try someone again if they don't like how the state trial came out?​

Yes. It has already happened once; the beating of Rodney King.

 

[LeBuick]

Oh, that's right...congress cannot mess up.

Yet you advocate an activist court. Make up your mind.

I never said congress doesn't make mistakes, I said according to the constitution congress can make laws. Mistake or not it's still a legal law.

The difference between me and you is that I read the Constitution for what it is. You read it for what you wish to make it. Being blunt, my method is better, safer, and more stable for this country than yours. It also better guarantees our freedoms.

Obviously I disagree, you have read one or two parts of the constitution and believe that represents the entire document. I consider then entire constitution and accept it as it's written and understand it can be changed to and including taking all our freedoms. There is a thing called Martial Law that can take your freedoms in the link of an eye and it's perfectly legal.

I understand and respect your desire for freedoms but it has to be considered within the framework of the document. You must also remember we have a Representative government which means there are times you will be represented by someone whose views you don't agree with. It happens to all of us but some of us accept it like adults.

 

[rbell]

It happens to all of us but some of us accept it like adults.

Uncalled for. I have given detailed, specific, and thought-out examples as to the problems endemic to hate-crime legislation. Name-calling is the last resort of one with a weaker argument.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It apparently includes protection for pedophiles also but not US Military. But what can one expect from the leftist democrats. This bill if passed into law will be used to persecute true Christians.

Where do you get this from? It does no such thing. NO protection for pedophiles, doesn't treat the military any different, and does not "persecute" Christians.

 

[Revmitchell]

The House of Representatives passed legislation last week to add sexual orientation and gender to the list of categories covered by federal "hate-crimes" laws.

"Pedophilia is one of the scores of sexual orientations that are included, that are protected, that are granted special preferred status under this legislation to the exclusion of other classifications of people," says Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel.


More Here

 

[Andy T.]

According to the constitution congress can make laws. How can any law congress makes be unconstitutional?

This is one of the most ignorant statements I have read on this forum. LB, please stop posting on matters like this until you've taken a remedial course on U.S. civics.

The Judicial Branch was specifically setup to provide a check against the Legislative Branch if they ever passed a law that was unconstitutional. You do understand the constitutional system of checks and balances, correct?