Now who was it that posted (now lost to the SDMB’s burp) something to the effect of “when you all figure out you’re wrong, then you’ll understand.”
I believe I and a half a dozen others had just posted about how smug they sounded. Would the person in question care to restate, or are they ashamed of their holier-than-thou attitude and would care to retract?
Hmmm, now, let me think… who was that?
Esprix
Sheesh.
Debate about this is necessary because some people use their beliefs (however right, wrong, heinous, righteous, Biblically correct…in some people’s interpretation… or not) to justify hurting (and sometimes even killing) or denying the rights of other people who behave or believe differently than they do…When those people are not in any way threatening the life or wellbeing of the people who are acting out against the people who don’t live the way the former people think they should.
It doesn’t really matter whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not. It doesn’t really matter whether you believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
What it comes down to is whether or not you believe people should be allowed basic human rights and the dignity to live their lives to the best of their ability. Or if you don’t think they SHOULD be allowed these rights because they don’t agree with the way YOU think they SHOULD live their lives.
In my opinon, only God has any right to judge whether homosexuality is a sin. I “judge” people as they are…their sexuality doesn’t concern me in any way. Their heart, or lack therof, does.
FTR, I am a born again Christian. And as I recall, the Bible states that you should “Judge not that you be not judged.” When those of you who are running around condemning someone because their sexuality doesn’t agree with your idea of the “correct” sexuality prove to me that you are without sin, I will start listening to you. Until then, I will reserve judgement on what is sin and what isn’t…unless there is clear proof that that “sin” is causing harm to others. Someone’s sexuality? It sure isn’t any of MY business, THAT’S for sure. I have enough trouble dealing with my OWN “motes in my eye”…I certainly don’t have any right to be deciding whether anyone ELSE has any. If you are a good person, you are a good person. If you are a twit, you are a twit. Your sexual orientation has nothing at all to do with it.
We are all going to have to face God in time…what do you think He is going to say to the people (for instance) who killed Matthew Shepard?
And where do you think the people who killed him gathered the “justification” for killing him?
The whole thing makes me sick.
Umm, if they were given the right to marry then, they would be the next of kin. Well like I said, the current laws should be amended so that they cannot exclude. We don’t need MORE fucking laws.
Erek
I haven’t heard much from the anti-gay corner regarding the gaybashing thread. Maybe someone could chime in and say whether or not they now feel that gays are, indeed, discriminated against…that it’s not all in their minds.
By the way, I would be in the same corner as those who say we don’t need hate-crime laws, if law enforcement would actually enforce the laws that are already in place. However, for those who are the targets of these kind of crimes, there seems to be a double standard where law enforcement comes in, and therefore, I think that the punishment for said crimes should be harsher. Too bad common decency has to be forced on some people. Hate crime laws are the price you have to pay.
Are gays discriminated against IRL? Certainly. On the SDMB? Hell, no!
As for hate-crime laws, I’m not sure if we’d ever adressed them. I’m a fence-sitter on this one. On the one hand, yes, it certainly is a sort of double standard, and prosecutes for thought crimes. On the other hand, we prosecute for “mental state,” ie “Self defense,” “provocation,” and a whole host of what could be called equal double-standards and evaluated mental states, so it’s hard to say that we’re breaking new ground with such laws.
On the other hand, stating that there are special groups that deserve extra protection seems anti-democratic. But it seems to be true, that certain groups do need that protection, so again, I wish it wasn’t necessary but it is.
I suppose if I had the power to do it over, I’d create a law doubling the penalty for random violence – you’re prejudicial by definition if you attack someone you don’t know, and it’s socially destructive enough to warrant extra penalty.
Has anyone ever actually read hate crime laws? Hate crime laws do not “double the punishment,” nor do are they “thought crime” - they reclassify the act so local law enforcement can receive more aid in prosecuting the crime.
Yeah, these threads are so pointless. :rolleyes: I hope the OP got his answer in spades.
Esprix
I don’t personally like these debates, but I do think having them is necessary. You’re not going to change the mind of someone who’s far a hetero-supremacist. (New word?) But you will enlighten people who are more tolerant. For example, I had no idea that so many rights were denied to gays because they can’t legally marry. I guess I just took a lot of the rights I have, as a spouse, for granted.
So, anyway, you are still fighting ignorance. It’s not a futile fight. For most people anyways.
Esprix, I’m sure you’re right in some cases, but in Wisconsin, they increase the punishment. I don’t know how to link, but I copied the text:
II. ADL Approach to Hate Crime Legislation
c - Wisconsin’s Penalty-Enhancement Statute
Wis. Stat. §939.645 (1991-1992)
§939.645. Penalty; crimes committed against certain people or property
1.If a person does all of the following, the penalties for the underlying crime are increased as provided in sub. (2):
(a) Commits a crime under chs. 939 to 948.
(b) Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime under
par. (a) is committed or selects the property that is damaged or
otherwise affected by the crime under par. (a) in whole or in part because of the actor’s belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actor’s belief or perception was correct.
2.(a) If the crime committed under sub. (1) is ordinarily a
misdemeanor other than a Class A misdemeanor, the revised
maximum fine is $10,000 and the revised maximum period of
imprisonment is one year in the county jail.
(b) If the crime committed under sub. (1) is ordinarily a Class A
misdemeanor, the penalty increase under this section changes the
status of the crime to a felony and the revised maximum fine is
$10,000 and the revised maximum period of imprisonment is 2
years.
© If the crime committed under sub. (1) is a felony, the maximum
fine prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than $5,000 and the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed by law for the crime may be increased by not more than 5 years.
Anyhoo, that’s part of it…it goes on.
And in Illinois:
The hate crimes statute of Illinois affords protection to persons attacked by reason of their race, colour, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability or national origin, and provides, in addition, that the injured person may bring a civil action for damages, an injunction or other appropriate relief for the injury suffered.
Again, copied cuz I don’t know how to link.
I think the constitutionality of the increased punishment has been questioned, and I don’t know what the outcome was. Laws against hate crimes vary as much as the definitions of hate crimes do.
Linkety loo?
Esprix, from the obscure, never-heard-of-em National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:
Bolding mine. Were you perhaps referring the the 1999 Federal bill?
Sorry…for the Illinois quote:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/hmv/hate_23.html
and for the Wisconsin quote, the ADL:
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/wisconsin.asp
I hope those work!
I was, indeed, referring to the Federal bill, which channeled federal aid to local law enforcement for crimes classified as hate-based. Indeed, state laws vary quite widely from what I’ve seen.
There have been numerous threads in GD about hate crimes - must we hash that out again here as well? Isn’t it sufficient to answer the OP by saying “there is still much point to these debates?”
Esprix
Absolutely! And I think it’s great that the punishments are harsher. There is nothing quite so cruel as intimidation. People DO read them and people DO change their outlooks. I’ve noticed RexDart hasn’t had much to say for a while now. I’d be interested in hearing if his opinion has changed at all. Rex, you out there?
Hate Crimes laws are similar to other compounding or “aggravating” conditions. If you commit an assualt while robbing someone, it’s considered aggravated-robbery or aggravated-assault and the penalty is higher than a simple robbery. And in many cases the crime wouldn’t have been committed without the hate motivation so it shouldn’t be a simple battery charge. It’s an aggravated battery.
It works both ways too. If a group of Leathermen beats the shit out of you because you’re straight, then that can be classified a hate-crime too, as it should.
My point, Homebrew, was that how can I prove that they did it because I’m straight? Maybe I just stole their money. Maybe it was because I’m straight, but they didn’t say so. The burden of proof is onerous, how can I prove it? And the classes that are delineated are defacto 'ism of all kinds.
I still say, all random assaults should be classified as aggravated. When you’re picked out of a crowd, based on the way you look, and targeted for assault, it’s a hate crime. I don’t see why anyone should have to prove that they fit an arbitrary list of protected classes.
If someone hits you because: You’re tatooed; you drive a motorbike; or an SUV; you’ve got a nose ring; you wear all black; trenchcoats; are chinese; black; jamaican. These are all socially destructive random acts of violence, and should be treated harshly – but equally.
Sigh, part of the reasons why hate crimes get a standardized sentance is so that the perpetrators will actually serve time. Harvey Milk was killed by the loon who got off for the “twinkie defense” which is total bullshit. If San Francisco had hate crime legislation at the time he would have served the time for murder that he should have.
To me, that is the only reason there should be hate crime legislation. It should be in a similar concordance with whatever type of crime was committed but ties the judges hands due to whatever bias they may actually have. So, if a typical random aggravated assault equals 2 years in prison, the same should be true for the hate crime aggravated assault. For the most part I think it is but in smaller, and less sophisticated towns, the “he needed killing defense” gets the perpetrator off scott free.
Let me!
My turn my turn my turn!
http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.htm
The twinkie defense never happened. 
Still waiting for a response to this. I wouldn’t want to mention any names for fear of being wrong, of course, but the fact that it was even stated - well, that kind of answers the OP, doesn’t it?
Esprix
If you’re talking about me, my intentions in sharing what I believe to be true is not to be “holier than thou”. I’m still struggling to learn to be able to share what I believe to be true in a loving manner, yet not compromising. If I’m who you’re speaking of, my apologies for sounding “holier than thou” in anything I’ve said. Also, I think that no matter what a person says or how gently he or she says it, some people are always going to get angry about it imho.