Originally posted by Bardock42
The topic are hate crime laws, thought police and this particular one, we are discussing the pros and cons of hate crime laws in general, quite on topic.
Federal hate-crime laws are a matter of fact in the United States. The issue is whether or not existing hate-crime laws should protect sexual orientation. The pros and cons of hate-crime laws is another topic.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEN-no. The topic is what sithsabre posted and whether his pastor should be allowed to say that gays are ... not cool. The question whether hate speech laws should be in place is quite essential to the topic.
Federal hate-crime laws are a matter of fact in the United States. The issue is whether or not existing hate-crime laws should protect sexual orientation. The pros and cons of hate-crime laws is another topic.
Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no. The topic is what sithsabre posted and whether his pastor should be allowed to say that gays are ... not cool.
And this post directly addresses the that:
Originally posted by Devil King
No one is going to loose any freedoms of speech, least of all religious hate mongers.It will [b]never
be illegal to call homosexuality morally wrong. If anyone on this board thinks that will be the case, you've bought into the religious right's lies. [/B]
Originally posted by Bardock42
The question whether hate speech laws should be in place is quite essential to the topic.
No, it is not. It is a different topic. This topic is about who should be protected by hate-crimes laws, not whether or not their should be hate-crimes laws.
Originally posted by Adam_PoENo, that is what you would like to topic to be, the topic is actually what sithsaber wanted it to be, which is what I said.
And this post directly addresses the that:No, it is not. It is a different topic. This topic is about who should be protected by hate-crimes laws, not whether or not their should be hate-crimes laws.
And yes, the post you repeatedly post is on topic. ...it is just redundant because it was posted before.
Originally posted by StarhawkFigures.
We have a very low hate crime rate.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, that is what you would like to topic to be, the topic is actually what sithsaber wanted it to be, which is what I said.
By all means, indicate where in the initial post in this thread, the necessity of hate-crime laws has been questioned.
The only thing that was questioned in the initial post in this thread is whether or not existing hate-crime laws should include sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, indicate where in the initial post in this thread, the necessity of hate-crime laws has been questioned.The only thing that was questioned in the initial post in this thread is whether or not existing hate-crime laws should include sexual orientation.
"Now while I'm not for anybody being hit or hurt, or even demeaned for race, gender, orientation, etc.....
I don't want somebody arresting my pastor because as a minister he gives the Bible's view on homosexuality.
Thoughts?"
That clearly asks whether hate speech laws should be in place for homosexuality. And if someone now says "No, there should be no laws about hate speech at all" that is of course deeply linked to the topic and a necessary point of discussion.
Originally posted by StarhawkFigurse and proof that it is due to the hate crime laws and not Canada's extremely different history regarding slavery and segragation.
well it's true our hate crime rate is extremely low, due to the fact that we don't allow people to use hate speech to spread racism and forms of prejudice.
Originally posted by Bardock42
"Now while I'm not for anybody being hit or hurt, or even demeaned for race, gender, orientation, etc.....I don't want somebody arresting my pastor because as a minister he gives the Bible's view on homosexuality.
Thoughts?"
That clearly asks whether hate speech laws should be in place for homosexuality.
And that is all it asks.
Originally posted by Bardock42
"And if someone now says "No, there should be no laws about hate speech at all" that is of course deeply linked to the topic and a necessary point of discussion.
No, that is a separate topic.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, that is a necessary discussion to answer the question implied.
Federal hate-crimes laws are a matter of fact in the United States. The topic of this thread is who should be protected by these laws.
Whether or not hate-crimes laws should exist is an entirely different topic. If you want to discuss whether or not hate-crimes laws should exist, you should start a new thread instead of derailing this one.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Federal hate-crimes laws are a matter of fact in the United States. The topic of this thread is who should be protected by these laws.Whether or not hate-crimes laws should exist is an entirely different topic. If you want to discuss whether or not hate-crimes laws should exist, you should start a new thread instead of derailing this one.
No, look, that is the topic you want. He is asking whether his pastor should be arrested for calling homosexually immoral.
That would be an additional law in the US, so, the discussion whether such laws should exist or not is more than valid. Can we now stop with it?