[QUOTE]Could that be a reason why many oppose it? We already have hate Crime laws on the books...why do we need another one?[/QUOTE
Yes, that is why people oppose it... the problem is that there is NO WAY that this law could ever be applied that way... Go back and read the actual writing from the Bill that I posted...
Quote:
It opens the door. The problem is if this bill is not worded specifically to say that only physical acts of violence such as physical assault and not verbal assault or words that could be said to incite physical assault or worse, then it can be loosely interpreted by any court in the land to prosecute Christians. So we need to closely examine this bill and how it is worded.
No, it doesn't open the door. Not even a homosexual would support "thought crime" legislation....
And, in case you didn't notice, I posted half of the bill and linked to the other half of the bill, go back and read it... It mentions "act of violence" specifically...
absolutely no way this can be interpreted as "verbal assaults" being included...
Quote:
Exactly...this is RCs quote, not mine.
There is no way an "overzealous prosecutor" could do anything but tack a few years on the end of a sentence for this... turn 25 to life to 35 to life...
Quote:
And again...exactly. RC says this was a biased source but they got it right...
No, they didn't, and I proved that later in the post when I actually posted the bill, keep reading, you'll find it...
Now I have a question...why should beating the mess out of a homosexual and killing him because he is a homosexual be a worse crime for beating the mess out of anyone at all and killing them for any other reason? Why do we even need hate crime laws that actually end up forming a specially protected class of Americans?
Because it can start a riot...
look at it this way... When the police beat Rodney King up because he was black the entire city of LA (among others) rioted... many more were injured and even killed BECAUSE of a racially motivated crime...
That is the reason motive matters.... All this does is make it worse to have a specific motive over other motives...
There are already similar laws on the books, and always have been. "Manslaughter" is when you accidentally kill someone by doing something illegal... 1st Degree Murder is when you do that same illegal thing, but you do it on purpose....
Most violent crimes involve hate already. These kinds of laws are open doors for more special protections. It's NOT worse. Are gang bangers prosecuted for hate crimes because they blow away a child while trying to kill a cross town rival gang member they HATE? No...but if he kills a gay person and says "Hey homo...you sick puppy, prepare to die" he will get extra time. Absurd.
the special protections already exist, this is just restating them and allowing them to give greater penalties for them...
and it isn't absurd because crimes that involve hate based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. can cause riots and other retaliatory reactions from those who are similar to the person being attacked or others who believe like the attacker...
These laws are being put on the books at the pressure of the GLTB groups that have classified themselves as the new "civil rights" movement. If the church is not careful not only will it be a crime to speak out against such debauchery but it will also be a crime to deny services to them.
I have interviewed some of these folks who are pushing for same sex marriage and they have admitted to me that in the end if it passes then they will have grounds to sue any church/minister who refuses them the sanctity of marriage.
it will NEVER be a law in the United States to say something is immoral... EVER... the GLBT groups wouldn't even allow that to happen and they'd march with us on Washington if they tried to enact real "thought crime" laws...
and they aren't reacting to pressure from them because they see themselves as a new civil rights group, they are doing this because they see evidence that those "civil rights" actually need to be protected and things like what happened to Mathew Shephard and the reactions of people to it show that....
And, again, there will never be any laws requiring any church to marry any person. You can already refuse to marry any straight couple, so why in the world would they force you to "marry" a gay couple????
Rod Parsley’s ‘Center for Moral Clarity’ is generating a petition against the hate crimes bill. I was looking on Breakthrough and he interviewed two preachers who were jailed for preaching against homosexualty. www.centerformoralclarity.net.
This may be real; I pray it’s not. I don’t have a home computer at home right now, so my responses are few. I will get back to this as soon as I can.
__________________
Going up in the Spirit Realm....
The bill in question does not have any "speech" implications. However, it is worth opposing because it is bad law. All violent crime should be punished and there is already clear established law on the books to deal with violent crime. adding additional punishment based on the thinking of the criminal sets a bad precident. i know there are some laws of this nature on the books already but they too are bad law.
But this bill does not deal with speech. Ive read the actual bill itself. you should read it. I still oppose the measure.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The bill in question does not have any "speech" implications. However, it is worth opposing because it is bad law. All violent crime should be punished and there is already clear established law on the books to deal with violent crime. adding additional punishment based on the thinking of the criminal sets a bad precident. i know there are some laws of this nature on the books already but they too are bad law.
But this bill does not deal with speech. Ive read the actual bill itself. you should read it. I still oppose the measure.
no, its not a bad precedent, and it already exists...
premeditated murder = 1st degree murder
not premeditated murder = 2nd/3rd degree murder (I don't remember which or what the other "degree" is)
there are already a ton of laws that make one crime worse than another crime based upon the thought of the person who committed the act...
but these aren't bad laws, they are good ones, because the intent/reasoning of the person who does the crime DOES add to or take away from the gravity of the crime and the good of the community...
And I posted the bill in the thread 3 pages ago and read it right before I did that (do you read my posts?)
look at it this way... When the police beat Rodney King up because he was black the entire city of LA (among others) rioted... many more were injured and even killed BECAUSE of a racially motivated crime...
That is the reason motive matters.... All this does is make it worse to have a specific motive over other motives...
There are already similar laws on the books, and always have been. "Manslaughter" is when you accidentally kill someone by doing something illegal... 1st Degree Murder is when you do that same illegal thing, but you do it on purpose....
At the risk of starting a riot here... The riot in LA was a few days[*correction: the riots were a year and a half later] after the much publicized beating of Mr. King. Also, the tape of that beating was edited by the media outlets and did not show Mr. King attacking the police officers, repeatedly attacking the police officers. The reason Mr. King was beaten was because instead of obeying the lawful orders of the police he repeatedly attacked them. I remember that at least 2 officers were treated at local hospitals because of injuries they suffered from Mr. King's attacks.
Mr. King himself, even after collecting a multimillion dollar jackpot was repeatedly arrested for assaults against police officers and against other citizens. The man was a menance. Hopefully he's chilled out by now, but his record shows he's a thug and a dangerous criminal.
The riot itself was really the product of that censored tape that failed to show people the truth. That tape was played repeatedly to inflame public opinion against the the police. As the truth dribbled out there was less and less support for Mr. King, even among the African-American community. I preached a sermon on civil responsibility one Sunday after those riots and was approached by several African-Americans in the congregation afterward who wanted to thank me for taking a stand. "It isn't skin, it's sin...!" one sister said, rather memorably.
You make other points, but your memory of the Rodney King affair could use a refresher.
At the risk of starting a riot here... The riot in LA was a few days after the much publicized beating of Mr. King. Also, the tape of that beating was edited by the media outlets and did not show Mr. King attacking the police officers, repeatedly attacking the police officers. The reason Mr. King was beaten was because instead of obeying the lawful orders of the police he repeatedly attacked them. I remember that at least 2 officers were treated at local hospitals because of injuries they suffered from Mr. King's attacks.
Mr. King himself, even after collecting a multimillion dollar jackpot was repeatedly arrested for assaults against police officers and against other citizens. The man was a menance. Hopefully he's chilled out by now, but his record shows he's a thug and a dangerous criminal.
The riot itself was really the product of that censored tape that failed to show people the truth. That tape was played repeatedly to inflame public opinion against the the police. As the truth dribbled out there was less and less support for Mr. King, even among the African-American community. I preached a sermon on civil responsibility one Sunday after those riots and was approached by several African-Americans in the congregation afterward who wanted to thank me for taking a stand. "It isn't skin, it's sin...!" one sister said, rather memorably.
You make other points, but your memory of the Rodney King affair could use a refresher.
my point was more that when the whole nation thought it was a racially motivated crime, they rioted...
Whether it actually was or not wasn't the point of what I said... lol
my point was more that when the whole nation thought it was a racially motivated crime, they rioted...
Whether it actually was or not wasn't the point of what I said... lol
yeah, but...
Since the "nation" was literally mislead as to the motives involved with the R.K. saga...
and since motive is at the heart of these "hate crime" laws...
Shouldn't we remove that element that can be used to corrupt and even to circumvent our criminal justice system all together? Remove the "hate crimes" language. Just go with the already illegal things like it's wrong to assault and kill.
The police already have at their disposal "disturbance" and "disorder" types of charges that they can use against, say, a klansman who hangs a noose over a black judge's doorstep. That kind of thing is wrong and likely to provoke public disorder - but we've already got laws to deal with it.
Linear Mode
