Originally posted by Bardock42
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?
No, it would be an ammendment to the current law.
Moreover, whether or not such laws should exist is a valid discussion . . . for another thread.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it's not just about hate crime. It is about the stating of ones opinion.
That is the entire point:
"Why We Need a Federal Hate-Crimes Law" by Judy Shepard and Joe Solmonese. . . The right wing is already launching its own full-scale effort to defeat the bill—and with few credible arguments against the law, those on the right have resorted to flat out lying. They actually argue that the law will criminalize thought and be used to persecute antigay churches. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 39 years that the current hate-crimes law has been on the books, there has never been a single “thought crime” charge brought against anyone. And despite the far right’s complaints, there is something profoundly telling about the fact that mainstream religious leaders from nearly all 50 states converged on Capitol Hill in April to take the lead in lobbying for this bill.
[They do not want sexual orientation to join national origin, race, and religion as a protected class.]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The thread-started did not ask whether or not federal hate-crimes laws should exist.He asked whether or not the existing federal hate-crimes laws should protect sexual orientation.
I came late to this thread, that is an interesting question though... but isn't "gay bashing" already labeled as a hate crime?
Originally posted by Robtard
That is my point... If "gay bashing" is already a hate crime, what is the issue in extension and/or what would it encompass?
I think the issue is that this extention of what is gay bashing would infringe on legitimated, though misguided, beliefs of others even if they express them in a way that is not meant to be agressive.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No; hence, the need to expand the law to include sexual orientation.
Are you certain? I don't think you're outright lying; I do remember a few years ago about the case (in Ca.) where 2-3 guys beat to death a transgender male (because he "made-out" with one of them) and it was labeled as a hate crime because of his [homo]sexuality.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think the issue is that this extention of what is gay bashing would infringe on legitimated, though misguided, beliefs of others even if they express them in a way that is not meant to be agressive.
That is what opponents of the legislation are trying to turn it into, because they have no credible objections to the legislation:
"Why We Need a Federal Hate-Crimes Law" by Judy Shepard and Joe Solmonese. . . The right wing is already launching its own full-scale effort to defeat the bill—and with few credible arguments against the law, those on the right have resorted to flat out lying. They actually argue that the law will criminalize thought and be used to persecute antigay churches. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 39 years that the current hate-crimes law has been on the books, there has never been a single “thought crime” charge brought against anyone. And despite the far right’s complaints, there is something profoundly telling about the fact that mainstream religious leaders from nearly all 50 states converged on Capitol Hill in April to take the lead in lobbying for this bill.
[They do not want sexual orientation to join national origin, race, and religion as a protected class.]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is what opponents of the legislation are trying to turn it into, because they have no credible objections to the legislation:
I was refering to this part of it actually:
"Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech."
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you certain? I don't think you're outright lying; I do remember a few years ago about the case (in Ca.) where 2-3 guys beat to death a transgender male (because he "made-out" with one of them) and it was labeled as a hate crime because of his [homo]sexuality.
The current federal hate-crimes law only protects individuals based on national origin, race, and religion.
This legislation would extend the law to include gender and sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was refering to this part of it actually:"Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech."
"Why We Need a Federal Hate-Crimes Law" by Judy Shepard and Joe Solmonese. . . In the 39 years that the current hate-crimes law has been on the books, there has never been a single “thought crime” charge brought against anyone.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was refering to this part of it actually:"Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech."
Really? Care to show cases in Canada where this has happened? And how can hate speech be peaceful?
Originally posted by Starhawk
Really? Care to show cases in Canada where this has happened? And how can hate speech be peaceful?
In Canada? 🤨
Hate speech could easily be peaceful when defined under the provisions of this law. There are people who believe whole heartedly that homosexuality is morally wrong. They have the right to express that belief in a non agressive way.
For example:
"KILL THE F*CKING F#GGOTS"
vs
"I think that being gay is immoral."
Under this law either one could be seen as "hate speech" although one is agressive and the other merely expresses and opinion.
Has it been used in this way? No.
Could it be? Yes, certainly.
I'm debating the potential for abuse or extremism not a precedent for such a problem.