Yes, Virginia, homophobic hate crimes do exist

[SwizzleStick]

Don’t matter to me. If the KKK were prosecuted as they should have been prosecuted, then they would have been dealt with. We do not need a new law every time someone** fails to enforce** an old law.

When one kills or harasses or persecutes another, it is never done out of love! It is always done out of hate. So what is new?

 

[LaSainte]

I don’t think the LAW should be more harsh for hate crimes, but to say that the motivation doesn’t MATTER is foolishness. If we aren’t willing to address the “why”, the disease, then there is no way to cure it. Motivations always matter. Some people here see an article like this and their first reaction is annoyance that this will be used as propaganda instead of being concerned for the poor person who was almost murdered. Sad.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t think the LAW should be more harsh for hate crimes…

And, yet it is…

Every person is a valued person. No one person is more valuable than another. Yet, hate crime laws say certain groups have more value than others, so more punishment is warranted for when crimes occur against those people. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[sw85]

I’m sharing this because I’ve read several posts lately in which people have claimed that gays and lesbians are purposely exaggerating and/or outright lying about the violence they might experience.

"A court has sentenced four relatives to years in prison for their roles in kidnapping and assaulting a gay man in Kentucky

The four were accused of luring Kevin Pennington into a truck in April 2011 and driving him up a deserted road into Kingdom Come State Park.

They pulled him out of the car and assaulted him, and as they were looking for a tire iron to kill him, he escaped, according to prosecutors."

cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/kentucky-gay-man-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Try to think about the argument you’re advancing here.

“Some people say hate crimes are overexaggerated. So here’s a single documented incident of a hate crime. Therefore, hate crimes aren’t overexaggerated.”

You get the problem with that, right?

Now personally, I have no opinion on whether or not “hate crimes” as such are overexaggerated. I don’t care. They have nothing to do with the case against (or for, for that matter) gay “marriage” which is why they’re always dredged up.

 

[7armyrugrats]

I know for a fact that hate crimes occur. Some are based on race, sexual orientation, gender, class and even body size. Yes they occur. The crime referenced in the original post, however, is a drug related crime and not a hate crime. One of the attackers, who happens to be married to a woman, is known to have attempted to have affairs with the victim. He was not attacked for being gay, he is claiming that to cover up his guilt in the drug crimes they were all fighting about. This has been in the news for a long time now

 

[kelvinf]

[SIGN]I personally have ZERO sympathy and compassion for gays who justify and prompt their perserve lifestyle![/SIGN]

 

[LaSainte]

[SIGN]I personally have ZERO sympathy and compassion for gays who justify and prompt their perserve lifestyle![/SIGN]

Lovely. Because that is what Jesus would have said. When Jesus was being crucified, did He say, “Father, I personally have ZERO sympathy and compassion for those who are crucifying me right now.”

 

[Captain_America]

This is an example of the logical fallacy, the Argument by Selective Instances.

These are touchy weird times, and it’s easy to take one example and generalize from it.

In reality, this proves nothing. One could just as easily say, “heck, just one ‘hate crime’ against homosexuals in the US in the past six months—it’s more risky to be heterosexual!”

I hate the concept of ‘hate crimes’: this is Orwellian Thought Police Fascism.

I hate the hysteria coming from the activists: in many ways they hurt their cause.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I know for a fact that hate crimes occur. Some are based on race, sexual orientation, gender, class and even body size. Yes they occur. The crime referenced in the original post, however, is a drug related crime and not a hate crime. One of the attackers, who happens to be married to a woman, is known to have attempted to have affairs with the victim. He was not attacked for being gay, he is claiming that to cover up his guilt in the drug crimes they were all fighting about. This has been in the news for a long time now

There’s another side to every story, and as you indicated, that applies here as well. Hate crime? Or, general crime? Bolding and underlining below is mine.

"…On trial is whether the men attacked Pennington because of an anti-gay bias.

Defence attorneys have painted a detailed picture arguing otherwise.

‘Mr Pennington does not come to this with clean hands,’ Jenkins’ attorney Andrew Stephens said in court on Wednesday.

The defence accused Pennington of being a drug dealer who lied early into the case by not revealing a planned deal before the attack, which Pennington has since acknowledged fearing it would outweigh his claims of his sexual orientation sparking the attack.

Anthony Jenkin’s attorney, Stephens and Willis G Coffey, said Pennington was beaten up but not because of his sexual orientation.

‘There was simply an argument that led to a fight because Jason was out of his head,’ Coffey said according to Kentucky.com, accusing David ‘Jason’ Jenkins of having been drunk and on drugs at the time."…

Blue excerpt from:
Gay man tells court how he jumped off mountain cliff to escape tormenters in landmark hate crime case
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219412/Kevin-Pennington-Gay-man-jumped-mountain-cliff-escape-attackers-landmark-hate-crime-case.html

 

[PaleoConCatlick]

I reject the concept of “hate crimes”. It gives more value to one group over another. Murder should be treated exactly the same regardless of the motivation of the killer.

Peace

Tim

There’s definitely a reason for hate crimes to be punished differently. I used to agree with what you just said, but then I noticed what the bigger issue was.

A murder/mugging, etc. is usually part of organized crime. A Mafioso whacks one of his stool pigeon drug dealers. The murder is still wrong, but the drug dealer put himself in the situation by his involvement with the mafia.

A hate crime is convicted against a random person. Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd were both minding their own business, and were tortured by violent sadists for no reason.

A gang jumping or mugging that results in death is motivated by money. Same with a gang war. But a hate crime is pure psychopathic sadism at the root, usually committed against someone who was unfortunate enough to cross paths with the sadist. It is far worse.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I will think on the matter a bit more. If hate crime prosecution deters crime in general, perhaps it is sometimes warranted. But, if it is used more as propaganda to further the homosexual agenda, as it is in fact frequently used, it may hurt society more than it helps society.

 

[Nimzovik]

Lovely. Because that is what Jesus would have said. When Jesus was being crucified, did He say, “Father, I personally have ZERO sympathy and compassion for those who are crucifying me right now.”

Rather Non Sequitur methinks.

 

[Nimzovik]

I will think on the matter a bit more. If hate crime prosecution deters crime in general, perhaps it is sometimes warranted. But, if it is used more as propaganda to further the homosexual agenda, as it frequently is used, it may hurt society more than it helps society.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh! But that is the nature of Law. To paint all with the same brush. If we use law to make distinctions - where does it stop?

 

[PaleoConCatlick]

I will think on the matter a bit more. If hate crime prosecution deters crime in general, perhaps it is sometimes warranted. But, if it is used more as propaganda to further the homosexual agenda, as it frequently is used, it may hurt society more than it helps society.

I just think it should be changed to “crimes motivated by sadism”. This will separate them from the Mafiosi who kill each other.

 

[Nimzovik]

Methinks gang Laws are already in place. This would nullify the need for Mafia
‘Hate Crime Law’ yes? Hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if Catholics will be called ‘gang memebers’ because of their Rosaries (tattoo equivalent of a ‘gang identifier’?)

 

[SwizzleStick]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh! But that is the nature of Law. To paint all with the same brush. If we use law to make distinctions - where does it stop?

Good point and I agree. I’m not at all convinced hate crime laws are necessary. But, I will try to look at it from the other side.

 

[holyrood]

Some folks just find it absolutely impossible to say “No, a person’s same-sex orientation is NOT justification to murder them or otherwise assault them.” That’s all this thread is about. There’s already been a thread on the bishop’s statement.

Of course it’s wrong to kill someone because of their sexual desires. I don’t think anybody on this board denies that. I don’t doubt that there are some people out there who would harm others over sexual desires, over race, over being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s wrong to kill people.

The problems with the article and the point trying to be made is the article says absolutely nothing about their motivation. Further posts here from people who apparently know more about the case say it was about drugs. I’ve read many times that Matthew Shepherd was killed over drugs. I’m sorry, but the fact that someone happens to be gay does not make any attack against them a hate crime. And if by law it does, then that means we do indeed have a special protected class in this country.

Another thing that bothers me is the skewed reporting on these things. A woman is cleared very clearly in a dispute over her Christian views, and it’s ignored and dismissed. A man who happens to be gay is killed in a drug dispute and it’s heralded as proof that people hate gays. No, this particular article is proof that there are scumbags in this world who get into fights and murder each other over drugs.

There are hateful, evil people in this world. Nobody denies that.

 

[kelvinf]

Lovely. Because that is what Jesus would have said. When Jesus was being crucified, did He say, “Father, I personally have ZERO sympathy and compassion for those who are crucifying me right now.”

Oh, Jesus clearly said that: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Who are those who go about trying to pervert little children?

 

[LaSainte]

Oh, Jesus clearly said that: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Who are those who go about trying to pervert little children?

Um…I don’t see anybody except NAMBLA and child molesters going around trying to pervert children. And despite that fact, Jesus STILL has compassion and sympathy for those individuals. They are His children as well. He was saying that they are damning themselves in their behavior, all the more reason to feel compassion for them.

 

[on_the_hill]

We do not need a new law every time someone** fails to enforce** an old law.

Frankly, this is why most laws exist. Not to be too facetious, but in the beginning there were only Ten Commandments.