# Special rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2000, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662 "2000-10-12T13:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/101 "2000-10-17T09:02:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DavisMcDavis \* > **The thing those of you opposed to the so-called “special rights” should remember is that everyone is protected, not just gay people. Anti-gay hate crimes can be and have been committed against straight people.** Happens quite a bit, unfortunately. I know several people who have been harassed and a few who have been bashed because they were perceived as gay even though they are not. One friend was targeted because his brother is gay. It is not uncommon for disgruntled guys to label the objects of their spurned affections as “lesbians”, which has occasionally resulted in harassment and even rape. The reason, as you properly note, why we may need hate crimes laws here is that this behavior is obviously antisocial in the extreme, but because gays and lesbians are relatively disfavored minorities, we cannot rely on state court judges to apply their discretion in sentencing since state court judges are beholden to the electorate by reason of being elected. Unfortunately, many judges are willing to compromise justice to ensure their reelection. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/102 "2000-10-17T09:31:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > The thing those of you opposed to the so-called “special rights” should remember is that **everyone** is protected, not just gay people. \*\* We should remember that **everyone** is protected under current criminal law irregardless of sex, religion, race, or sexual preference. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Would you be okay with it if I fired you for being gay, whether or not you actually were? \*\* I might be mistaken but hate crime laws deal with criminal not civil law. Hate crime laws are not anti-discrimination laws. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I understand people’s opposition to hate crimes laws, but if there’s special consideration given to race and religion, I think sexual orientation should be added, or else the whole set of laws removed. \*\* Just keep in mind that those of us who oppose hate crime laws generally oppose them across the board. Marc ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/103 "2000-10-17T15:00:45Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by MGibson \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > We should remember that **everyone** is protected under current criminal law irregardless of sex, religion, race, or sexual preference. > \*\* Supposedly. ---
**Author:** ![DavisMcDavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dfb087/32.png) [@DavisMcDavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavisMcDavis)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/104 "2000-10-17T15:51:38Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by MGibson \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > I might be mistaken but hate crime laws deal with criminal not civil law. Hate crime laws are not anti-discrimination laws. \*\* Yes, that’s true. I was speaking more broadly to the OP who mentioned George Bush’s son’s opposition to what he termed “special rights,” one of those “special rights” being the right not to be fired for being perceived as gay. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Just keep in mind that those of us who oppose hate crime laws generally oppose them across the board. > \*\* Yet strangely, it’s only those dealing with anti-gay hate crimes that receive any attention or actual opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/105 "2000-10-17T16:47:53Z")
I am a Bush supporter, but I think that it is logically incongruous to refuse the right of gays to marry and to insist that no special rights are needed because everyone has equal rights. If al are equal, all should be able to marry. If all are not equal and that is acceptable, then the argument against "special rights’ is usupportable. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/106 "2000-10-17T17:00:40Z")
Okay, I don’t have a copy of the Gay Agenda handy, but how about these items, not yet covered in the thread: [li]the Employment Non-Discrimination Act[/li][li]decriminalization of consensual adult sex acts[/li][li]laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, loans, and other similar everyday transactions[/li] Are these “special rights”? Even the phrasing to define them makes it evident to me that they are not. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/107 "2000-10-17T17:41:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Okay, I don’t have a copy of the Gay Agenda handy, but how about these items, not yet covered in the thread: \*\* Not to rain on your parade Polycarp but: [quote] \*\*[li]the Employment Non-Discrimination Act[/li][/quote] \*\* Ive seen it proposed on this board by more than a few people that employers should be able to hire and fire any one they want for any reason they wish be it skin color, sex, feet too big, etc. > [@](#): > > [li]decriminalization of consensual adult sex acts[/li] What and offend peoples morals and religious beliefs? :eek: [quote] [li]laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, loans, and other similar everyday transactions[/li][/quote] See # 1 & 2above. > [@](#): > > Are these “special rights”? Even the phrasing to define them makes it evident to me that they are not. \*\* From as near as I’ve been able to determine, any rights not benefiting white heterosexual males are “special rights”. No matter the situation, in explaining the need for these laws, they are met with "yeah i recognize that that’s a problem but… (_insert argument here_) So here’s my suggestion for a new ammmendment: **We as people of the United States recognize that some people are discriminated against and/or are singled out as targets of violence based their color, sex, or orientation. We intend to do absolutely nothing about it, so get over it.** Sorry for the rant. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/108 "2000-10-17T19:39:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > Just keep in mind that those of us who oppose hate crime laws generally oppose them across the board. > > \*\* > > Yet strangely, it’s only those dealing with anti-gay hate crimes that receive any attention or actual opposition. > \*\* That’s false. Maybe you only take notice when someone mentions homosexuals. Marc ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/109 "2000-10-17T20:25:32Z")
> [@](#): > > We should remember that everyone is protected under current criminal law irregardless of sex, religion, race, or sexual preference. i would remember that if it were true. what the law says and what the police and courts do are not the same thing. “protection” that does not result in protection must be called by another name. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/110 "2000-10-17T21:06:39Z")
dixie said > [@](#): > > i would remember that if it were true. what the law says and what the police and courts do are not the same thing. “protection” that does not result in protection must be called by another name. Ok, so some judges and police are not following the law. So the answer is to make another law that they will not want to follow? I am sorry, but I just don’t get it. I can see hate crime laws as being a way to punish sociopaths even more. I can even see wanting to create them as a deterrent (though I don’t think that will work.) But making laws to make the lawless adhere to the laws…well, that doesn’t seem to make much sense. Methinks we are looking at a mandatory sentencing debate. ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/278dde/32.png) [@JustAnotherGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/111 "2000-10-17T21:11:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Okay, I don’t have a copy of the Gay Agenda handy, but how about these items, not yet covered in the thread: > > [li]the Employment Non-Discrimination Act[/li][li]decriminalization of consensual adult sex acts[/li][li]laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, loans, and other similar everyday transactions[/li] > Are these “special rights”? Even the phrasing to define them makes it evident to me that they are not. \*\* I exclude myself from this group because wherever there is a need for anti-discrimination law, I am not homophobic and don’t really care if they are included or not. There are a couple of reasons why homosexuality is often left out of discrimination clauses. 1. The religious reasons. This is a big part of the marriage debate, which some see as the government sanctioning of a religious practice. Obviously there are other significant factors… tax filing, insurance coverage, other marital benefits. 2. Race, sex, national origin, these are things that are innate, born into a person. The argument for whether homosexuality is learned or innate aside, the assumption for those who argue this point is that it is learned and since there is no reason for them to know a person’s sexual practices, there is furthermore no reason they need protection. Throughout this post, I think you will note that the opposition to Hate Crime Laws are not opposed to applying it to sexual orientation, they are against the need for Hate Crime Laws in any context. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/112 "2000-10-17T21:17:12Z")
Jag, you forgot reason #3: homosexuals are not identifiable except by their own choice. They can (and do) blend in perfectly if they so choose. Whether homosexuality is a choice is lesss of an issue than the desire of a homosexual to announce their sexual orientation. I may be a beastophile, but my boss would never know it should I choose to keep it secret. A black person has no such luck. I would argue that most religions are also invisible if the believer chooses. I have no earthly idea wht religion my employees are, nor can I find out unless they divulge it. I have trouble with special protection for sexual orientation for this reason (among others.) ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/113 "2000-10-17T21:49:11Z")
hate crime laws are not about increasing punishment. they are about bringing unenforced laws into larger jurisdictions so that someone will give protection to unpopular minorities and giving new tools to law enforcers to combat violence. perhaps some gays can live in stealth mode. [ie pretend not to be gay.] aside from why some people should not be able to talk about their lovers while most people can, there is another group that cannot be stealth. transgendereds. to be honestly transgender means that everyone can see. oh, one could pretend to be cisgendered. but then one is living a complete lie. i’m not much of a supporter of hate crime laws, but i’ve never heard a good argument against them. let’s face it, many minorities are subject to undue discrimination and what’s more important, violence. the primary job of any government is to protect the individual. since existing laws are not protecting all classes of people, what means would you use to equalize protection?? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/114 "2000-10-17T21:50:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dixiechiq \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > We should remember that everyone is protected under current criminal law irregardless of sex, religion, race, or sexual preference. > > i would remember that if it were true. what the law says and what the police and courts do are not the same thing. “protection” that does not result in protection must be called by another name. \*\* So please explain to me how hate crime laws change this? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/115 "2000-10-17T22:03:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dixiechiq \* > \*\*hate crime laws are not about increasing punishment. they are about bringing unenforced laws into larger jurisdictions so that someone will give protection to unpopular minorities and giving new tools to law enforcers to combat violence. \*\* Federal hate crime laws only apply to federal laws which are broken. So just how does it bring unenforced laws under a larger jurisdiction? Federal agents do not suddenly have jurisdiction just because a hate crime was committed. > [@](#): > > \*\* > perhaps some gays can live in stealth mode. [ie pretend not to be gay.] \*\* All jokes aside I generally can’t spot a homosexual in a crowd. On the other hand I can spot a member of another race out of a crowd with relative ease. > [@](#): > > \*\* > i’m not much of a supporter of hate crime laws, but i’ve never heard a good argument against them. let’s face it, many minorities are subject to undue discrimination and what’s more important, violence. the primary job of any government is to protect the individual. since existing laws are not protecting all classes of people, what means would you use to equalize protection?? \*\* What evidence is there to suggest that all people aren’t being protected under the law? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/116 "2000-10-17T22:20:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dixiechiq \* > \*\*hate crime laws are not about increasing punishment. they are about bringing unenforced laws into larger jurisdictions so that someone will give protection to unpopular minorities and giving new tools to law enforcers to combat violence. \*\* If a law is on the books, and the police and judges are not enforcing that law, then we need to reform the way in which we treat judges and the police. Rogue judges should not be tolerated regardless of the indescretion. BTW, I would like to have some specific examples of these straw judges and police. > [@](#): > > perhaps some gays can live in stealth mode. [ie pretend not to be gay.] aside from why some people should not be able to talk about their lovers while most people can, there is another group that cannot be stealth. transgendereds. using this logic, I should be able to wear raw meat for clothes and talk publicly about my lovve of porn and masturbation without being discriminated against. Let’s face it, there are certain behaviors that the majority dislike. And when you make some people uncomfortable, they retaliate. Not that this is right, or preferable. I don’t like a lot of social mores. I hate being around uptight people that can’t take a joke or that have never done drugs. But my aberrant behavior does not necesitate a law governing _their_ behavior. > [@](#): > > i’m not much of a supporter of hate crime laws, but i’ve never heard a good argument against them. 1. they wont deter crime 2. intent is already considered in sentencing ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/117 "2000-10-17T22:39:09Z")
> [@](#): > > What evidence is there to suggest that all people aren’t being protected under the law? if i provide you with such evidence, will you be in favor of offering such groups additional protections under law?? if not, i dont’ see why i should waste my time. perhaps you can give me a reason. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/118 "2000-10-17T22:43:38Z")
I would be happy to look at such evidence. If it is indeed sound, then yes, I would be in favor of laws that would change this. [I know you weren’t talking to me, BTW] ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/119 "2000-10-17T23:03:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Federal hate crime laws only apply to federal laws which are broken. So just how does it bring unenforced laws under a larger > jurisdiction? Federal agents do not suddenly have jurisdiction just because a hate crime was committed. i believe you are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2000, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/120 "2000-10-17T23:05:12Z")
> [@](#): > > All jokes aside I generally can’t spot a homosexual in a crowd. On the other hand I can spot a member of another race out of a crowd > with relative ease. ok, how about someone that does not conform to “expected” gender roles?? one can pick them out of a crowd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662.md?page=7)