Casey Ran as "Pro-Life"; His First Act Seeks "Sexual Orientation" Hate Crime Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_Paul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andruschak said:
When all is said and done, a lot of gay people are still being harrased, assulted, beaten, and even killed, for no other reason then their sexual orientation.:
Click to expand...
I am sure if it was pervasive, or even significantly more prevalent than such acts committed against heterosexuals, the pro-homosexual news media would tell us so nightly. But it doesn’t. But what is the message to all this? The punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Lots of times it doesn’t, of course, due to abusive judges or juries who flout that ideal. But if that is the objective, then why is a crime against a homosexual worse than a crime against a heterosexual? If I am beaten savagely for any reason or no reason, why am I less worthy of redress than a homosexual? Why is the one who beats me less guilty? That’s the message this kind of legislation communicates. Homosexual rights are simply more important than the rights of non-homosexuals. That is a message given many times and in many ways in this society nowadays, and hate crime legislation is one of the ways in which that message is delivered.
 
If the hate crime law entrenches sexual orientation as a protected “class”, then hate crimes made against heterosexuals specifically because they are heteroseuxlas, it would make sense that they would be protected by this law as well, being a sexual orientation.

Hate crime legislation protects, for example, race. Does it specify African Americans only? I don’t believe so. The fact is however, this legislation will most commonly protect the minorities as they are the most commonly targeted. It has the potential to protect anyone if they are targeted on account of the given identity.

If a law protects race as a special class…then are’nt you protected because you have a race? If it protects sexual orientation…do you not have a sexual orientation?
 
Let me put it this way: I would reject a law that made anti-Catholic attacks a hate crime. Because all hate crime laws protect no one and instead criminalize *thought *instead of acts. Everyone–Black, white, gay, straight, religious, atheist should oppose them.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Let us just agree to disagree with some things others think are proper.

In my opinion it seems that when we make an action protected then there is a small minority that makes that protection a target. Things just don’t get better they get worse because of conflict.

A case in mind is hate speech. We as a country are now loosing our right to free speech in small bites. Many people only think that their speech is to be protected. Just watch the news.

A pot of boiling water without a lid evaporates. A pot of boiling water with a tight fitting lid explodes. Remember to let the steam evaporate before it becomes a bomb. In other words let people talk and then most will just listen to themselves and not explode onto those that are protected.
Click to expand...
Which country are you referring to? If it is the US, how are we losing our right to free speech?
 
Ridgerunner said:
I am sure if it was pervasive, or even significantly more prevalent than such acts committed against heterosexuals, the pro-homosexual news media would tell us so nightly. But it doesn’t. But what is the message to all this? The punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Lots of times it doesn’t, of course, due to abusive judges or juries who flout that ideal. But if that is the objective, then why is a crime against a homosexual worse than a crime against a heterosexual? If I am beaten savagely for any reason or no reason, why am I less worthy of redress than a homosexual? Why is the one who beats me less guilty? That’s the message this kind of legislation communicates. Homosexual rights are simply more important than the rights of non-homosexuals. That is a message given many times and in many ways in this society nowadays, and hate crime legislation is one of the ways in which that message is delivered.
Click to expand...
Actually the prosecution has to demonstrate that the motivation for the beating was the homosxuality of the victim. Simply beating someone who is a homosexual does not trigger a hate crime.

It is also a hate crime to beat someone because they are Catholic. However, simply beating someone who is Cathoic is not a hate crime.

Who supports hate crime legislation protecting Catholics? Does that make them a special group? Does it mean Catholics’ rights are more important than the rights of non-Catholics?

Or, are Catholics more deserving of hate crime protection than Homosexuals? If so, why?

It’s easy to play this game. Just pick any two groups and fill in the blanks. It works equally well with Catholics, gays, Jews, women, handicapped, blacks…
 
Scottgun said:
Let me put it this way: I would reject a law that made anti-Catholic attacks a hate crime. Because all hate crime laws protect no one and instead criminalize *thought *instead of acts. Everyone–Black, white, gay, straight, religious, atheist should oppose them.
Click to expand...
Yes, in a completely color-blind, religion-blind, sexual orientation-blind society you would be right- there would be no need for hate crime legislation. But as our history and our newspapers tell us, people still are discriminated against and brutalized based on personal characteristics. Are we in a way criminalizing thought through hate crime legislation? Yes, and rightly so, evil thoughts that leads to criminal acts. These should be criminalized to deter people from committing violence against others based solely on personal characteristics.

For instance, say you were Chinese, lived in a predominantly white state full of bigots, and could not afford to live elsewhere. Everday on your way home from work, you were pummeled because of your race and the courts issued a simple misdeamonor to the assailants for the attack. I’m sure you would be appreciative for the enactment of hate crime legislation that would issue severe penalties to your assailants and made them think twice before they decided to pummel you again.

The fact is, homosexuals do get attacked for their sexual orientation, such as Scott Shephard, and their attackers should suffer greater consequences for singling them out because of their sexual orientation.

If anything Casey’s amendment is pro-life because he is affording protections and possibly saving some homosexuals from meeting the same fate as Scott Shephard- death.
 
Thomas_B said:
evil thoughts that leads to criminal acts. These should be criminalized to deter people from committing violence against others based solely on personal characteristics.
.
Click to expand...
Who is going to decide what constitues “hate”?

Those with power.

And who is going to decide motivation?

Those with power.

Who will they use the laws against?

Anyone who crosses them.

And why will they do this?

To gain more power.

Had a professor in college who was translating German Court transcripts from the mid 1930s. Nothing overtly political. Run of the mill crimes. Civil cases. But fascist ideology–that man is not created equal and the state has a duty to take those inequilities into account, had not left lower courts untouched. What struck this professor, stunned him actually, was how Nazi ideology had seeped into all corners of the judicial system. Three criteria determined the degree of guilt (often guilt itself) and the degree of punishment:
  1. Race
  2. Class
  3. Gender.
Sound familiar, doesn’t it?

Equality under law is such a simple concept. Justice is depicted as blindfolded to encourage this goal. But in every society, in every culture, no matter how democratic and equalitarian its principles are, there are those who do not see justice that way, who are always trying to carve out exceptions for themselves and those who give them political support.
 
David_Paul said:
Who is going to decide what constitues “hate”?

Those with power.

And who is going to decide motivation?

Those with power.

Who will they use the laws against?

Anyone who crosses them.

And why will they do this?

To gain more power.

Had a professor in college who was translating German Court transcripts from the mid 1930s. Nothing overtly political. Run of the mill crimes. Civil cases. But fascist ideology–that man is not created equal and the state has a duty to take those inequilities into account, had not left lower courts untouched. What struck this professor, stunned him actually, was how Nazi ideology had seeped into all corners of the judicial system. Three criteria determined the degree of guilt (often guilt itself) and the degree of punishment:
  1. Race
  2. Class
  3. Gender.
Sound familiar, doesn’t it?

Equality under law is such a simple concept. Justice is depicted as blindfolded to encourage this goal. But in every society, in every culture, no matter how democratic and equalitarian its principles are, there are those who do not see justice that way, who are always trying to carve out exceptions for themselves and those who give them political support.
Click to expand...
Right, what you are describing is sort of a negative photograph of the hate crime legislation. Yes, the law can be perverted to serve unjust causes- the law can be used to persecute just as it can be used to protect. There is nothing unjust about protecting minorities that may suffer persecution, in fact, that is the basis of the first amendment of our constitution. Protecting minorities that may suffer persecution because of personal characteristics is acknowledging reality and delivering justice, not preferential treatment.

The primary reason why your comparison with Nazi laws is not apt is because the Nazi laws did not reflect a truth or reality. There is no rationale at all for measuring guilt or punishment to a person based on their religion, gender or race. However, protecting minorities for whom there have been ample instances of abuse is a truth and reality and it is the moral obligation of a state to respond to that reality and construct laws to protect those individuals.
 
David_Paul said:
Touted as pro-life and pro-family moderate who values his Catholic faith

By Meg Jalsevac

SCRANTON, PA, November 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Within 24 hours of winning the bitter Pennsylvanian Senate race against incumbent Republican Rick Santorum, Democrat Senator-elect Bob Casey, Jr. let his real agendas show through. Citizenlink.org has reported that, the very day after the election, Casey announced that he would work in support of legislation to increase the scope of federal hate crimes law to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity as a victim group . . .

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06111403.html
Click to expand...
Hate crimes are against Catholic teaching so hooray for Bob Casey. If it pleases God, may his legislation pass.
 
HoppityRedux said:
Which country are you referring to? If it is the US, how are we losing our right to free speech?
Click to expand...
Praying in public is prohibited in some schools and public buildings. Christmas songs and cards prohibited in some schools and work places. If someone wants to speak out about their feelings on moral issues they are accused of “hate” speech. So yes I do believe some of us are loosing our rights to free speech in the USA.
 
Thomas_B said:
Right, what you are describing is sort of a negative photograph of the hate crime legislation. Yes, the law can be perverted to serve unjust causes , , ,
Click to expand...
And we’re supposed to let a small group of people, or judges, determine who is just and injust.

As if they are not us.

They are us but worse. They have power.

The rest of your comment goes back to my point. Who decides? You mention one gay who was murdered. You do know at least one of Matthew’s attackers was bi-sexual himself? You know it was a drug deal gone bad? You know they thought he was just a jerk, and the murder had nothing to do with being homosexual per se? You know gay groups and the politicians in their pockets have milked that one murder for everything they can get, don’t you? You know I and nearly all Americans don’t care why they killed the boy? You know we wanted the killers prosecuted to the fillest extent of the law?

Ever look at the FBI stats on black and white crime? It is over 50 to 1. It is alarming. But nothing everyone doesn’t know. My sister was mugged a few hundred feet from the Washington Monument in D.C. She was knocked to the ground and beaten. Do I think the perps (there were several) “hated” her because she is white? Nope. They wanted her Nikon. Or more than that, the crime against my sister was because of the climate of envy, blame and greed certain politicians had created (her Nikon was why, in their addled minds, they were destitute druggies).
 
On the one hand, I think hate crime legislation is stupid for the same reasons others have listed (equal treatment, why does the reason make the crime worse, etc.). However, I don’t think Casey’s support for it is evidence of not being *really *pro-life. Rather, it’s evidence of compassion combined with PC politics.

I’m sure he’ll do something else that will provide more solid evidence. 😉
 
And so am I. Hate crimes are against Church teaching so hooray for Bob Casey. He is obviously pro life.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t think anyone here is going to claim the Church is not against hate crimes. The question is, why expand the definition of hate crime only to this very specific group of people? There was a thread just the other day on this forum about a Catholic woman who was brutally raped and murdered for confronting her friend about his active homosexual lifestyle. Do you think Bob Casey will ever lobby that as a hate crime? We are absolutely under an obligation to treat those with same-sex attractions as beloved children of God, and to give them equal rights under the law with respect to justice. We cannot, however, in good conscience, place them on a pedestal above everyone else by calling their murder a hate crime and refusing to call other murders hate crimes when such other murders clearly are.

God bless.
 
In our court system (USA) we have something known as extenuating circumstances. The fact that the crime was done because of “hate” etc has always been taken into consideration. So why make laws so specific that they are almost impossible to enforce.
 
David_Paul said:
And we’re supposed to let a small group of people, or judges, determine who is just and injust.

As if they are not us.

They are us but worse. They have power.
Click to expand...
The judges aren’t the ones proposing this hate crime legislation, it is the Legislature. The judge’s job is to determine what laws apply to the specific facts of a case In addition, help to determine the appropriate punishment for a crime, and determine if a new is consistent with the spirit of a state or the federal constitution.

Regarding legislators, well, we gave them the power to craft laws when we elected them. Bob Casey is one senator who is putting forth a law he thinks is just. The proposed law will be debated in the Senate and may or may not pass depending on whether more legislators feel the way you do, or the way I do.
The rest of your comment goes back to my point. Who decides? You mention one gay who was murdered. You do know at least one of Matthew’s attackers was bi-sexual himself? You know it was a drug deal gone bad? You know they thought he was just a jerk, and the murder had nothing to do with being homosexual per se? You know gay groups and the politicians in their pockets have milked that one murder for everything they can get, don’t you? You know I and nearly all Americans don’t care why they killed the boy? You know we wanted the killers prosecuted to the fillest extent of the law?

Ever look at the FBI stats on black and white crime? It is over 50 to 1. It is alarming. But nothing everyone doesn’t know. My sister was mugged a few hundred feet from the Washington Monument in D.C. She was knocked to the ground and beaten. Do I think the perps (there were several) “hated” her because she is white? Nope. They wanted her Nikon. Or more than that, the crime against my sister was because of the climate of envy, blame and greed certain politicians had created (her Nikon was why, in their addled minds, they were destitute druggies).
Click to expand...
Well, if you don’t like the Scott Shephard example, let’s look at the FBI crime statistics. Of all the hate crimes committed, in 1991, 8.9% were committed because of one’s sexual orientation. In 1997, the percentage increased to 14% and in 2004, that percentage is now 17.6%. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation is the second largest class of hate crime below race and they have been steadily increasing. That seems like a problem to me.
 
Actually the idea behind hate crimes legislation is that the hate crimes themselves are not against individuals, they are against communities. When the Klan burned a cross on a black family’s yard, it was not meant just as a message to that family, but to all the black families in the area. Same thing with lynchings etc.

When I was in college, there was some group of idiots bashing gay folk in my area. You better believe all the gay folk were afraid. Heck even people who weren’t gay but might be perceived as gay were afraid. We went around wearing whistles for a good month until the attacks stopped. (the whistles were to summon help if we were attacked or witnessed an attack). Those attacks were so much more than about the individuals attacked.

When that freak from world church of the creator, Smith, went berzerk and shot miscellaneous minorities back in the 90’s (Ricky Birdsong was one of his victims) it affected everyone who could possibly fit his victim profile. That’s what makes a hate crime different from just a crime.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Praying in public is prohibited in some schools and public buildings. Christmas songs and cards prohibited in some schools and work places. If someone wants to speak out about their feelings on moral issues they are accused of “hate” speech. So yes I do believe some of us are loosing our rights to free speech in the USA.
Click to expand...
If children were being banned from praying in a public school, their parents would have a great lawsuit against the school. Public schools cannot prohibit students from praying.

What is prohibited are the representatives of a government organization putting up signs or displays that appear to favor a particular religion in common areas. However, as an employee I can put nativity scenes up in my office, hang a cross, and pray because it is clear that my faith is a personal belief that does not represent the official position of my state government.

And regarding speaking out on moral views, that is not prohibited either- that is actually protected by the 1st amendment. There are people a block up from me that stand on street corners who scream and say we are all going to Hell unless we repent and join their religion. No one is arresting them. However, in a workplace, and I would say any workplace, public or private, it would be considered unprofessional and creating a hostile work environment if one were to engage a co-worker about their decision to be homosexual and try to convert them. Employers pay their employees to do a job, not to prosetlyize on the job. Outside of work, that is a completely different matter.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Praying in public is prohibited in some schools and public buildings. Christmas songs and cards prohibited in some schools and work places. If someone wants to speak out about their feelings on moral issues they are accused of “hate” speech. So yes I do believe some of us are loosing our rights to free speech in the USA.
Click to expand...
Many schools and workplaces have restrictions on the type of speech and conduct they will allow. I bet your church has restrictions on the type of conduct it will allow. I suspect your workplace also has restrictions. This forum has rules. Are they an infringement on freedom of speech? Is it your contention that freedom of speech exists only in an unfettered environment where anyone can say and do whatever they choose whenever they choose?

I am just as free to accuse you of hate speech against me as you are to speak out against me. Do you have freedom of speech only if the rest of us agree to keep quiet? Do you have a right to my silence? Do you have a right to be the only voice heard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top