PDA

View Full Version : Hate Crimes



wilbur
05-27-2009, 09:46 PM
But it will be done in the case of same sex marriages because with the passage of the new hate crimes act it will become a crime to refuse to perform the ceremony on the basis that it is discrimination against homosexuals.


You still are not grasping what hate crime laws actually do. All they do is stipulate enhanced punishments for existing crimes. Hate crime laws don't have much to do with discrimination laws at all... except that they draw from the same source to determine what the designated groups with protected status are. Other than that, they are not related at all.




Much like the fair housing act allows homosexuals to sue if they are denied an apartment or home because of their sexual orientation. Much like they sue businesses if they are refused work because of their sexual desires. Much like they they sue anyone who views their life style as immoral.

The biggies under discrimination law are housing, employment, public services, access to loans etc... not membership in private organizations, many of whom discriminate quite freely and openly. Boy Scouts of America, for example... yes, they have been sued.. and their rights have held up in court... every time.



Much like they filed suit to over turn prop 8 on the grounds that the process to amend the California state constitution was illegal when they had no problem with the legality of the process when it was working in their favor.

In that case, there was an argument that was valid enough to go to court to have the case heard... and it failed, strangely enough. In the face of this recent event, why on Earth should we believe that there is a chance a church could be successfully sued for performing marriages, should marriage be removed from government? For most organizations in this country, its perfectly legal to discriminate (unless their area/industry/whatever is specified in discrimination law).

Gingersnap
05-27-2009, 10:53 PM
Stay on topic.

Teetop
05-27-2009, 11:03 PM
:confused: Hell if I know. Some one gimme a link.... :confused:

stsinner
05-27-2009, 11:57 PM
The biggies under discrimination law are housing, employment, public services, access to loans etc... not membership in private organizations, many of whom discriminate quite freely and openly. Boy Scouts of America, for example... yes, they have been sued.. and their rights have held up in court... every time.
.

What the hell are you talking about? Anyone can apply for a loan..

As far as the Boy Scouts, hooray for their rights holding up.. The Boy Scouts teaches boys to be men. This is not a job for queers, and only an uppity queer would ever sue to try to be something he's not.

AmPat
05-28-2009, 01:16 AM
You still are not grasping what hate crime laws actually do. All they do is stipulate enhanced punishments for existing crimes. Hate crime laws don't have much to do with discrimination laws at all... except that they draw from the same source to determine what the designated groups with protected status are. Other than that, they are not related at all.
Why do we need this? Is it more unlawful to kill a person I hate than one I don't know. Is the "hate" an extenuating circumstance? How do you measure or prove an emotion like hate? Who decides whether Hate was a factor. Does the victims family get more settlement if the perp hates? What if a husband kills a wife and claims he did it out of love? What about stalkers who slay the objects of their obsession? They usually "love" their victims. Should they get a lighter sentence? What about psychopaths or sociopaths who kill without so much as a single point rise in their BP? Do they get credit for killing without ANY emotion?

This smacks of thought police to me and is unecessary. We have laws against crimes,,,,,,,,,,,PERIOD. Placing an emotion factor on crimes is the hieght of silliness IMO.

samurai
05-28-2009, 02:35 AM
You still are not grasping what hate crime laws actually do. All they do is stipulate enhanced punishments for existing crimes. Hate crime laws don't have much to do with discrimination laws at all... except that they draw from the same source to determine what the designated groups with protected status are. Other than that, they are not related at all.




The biggies under discrimination law are housing, employment, public services, access to loans etc... not membership in private organizations, many of whom discriminate quite freely and openly. Boy Scouts of America, for example... yes, they have been sued.. and their rights have held up in court... every time.



In that case, there was an argument that was valid enough to go to court to have the case heard... and it failed, strangely enough. In the face of this recent event, why on Earth should we believe that there is a chance a church could be successfully sued for performing marriages, should marriage be removed from government? For most organizations in this country, its perfectly legal to discriminate (unless their area/industry/whatever is specified in discrimination law).

They don't have to sue successfully, they can just keep sueing and forcing the organization or church to pay lawyers to defend against the suits. And eventually, if they find a judge who cares more about "empathy" than the law, they might win a case or 2, and get huge fines and penalties laid against them. After all, when they are constantly on the defensive, they have to win every single time, while the groups on offense only need to win once.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 03:57 AM
You still are not grasping what hate crime laws actually do. All they do is stipulate enhanced punishments for existing crimes. Hate crime laws don't have much to do with discrimination laws at all... except that they draw from the same source to determine what the designated groups with protected status are. Other than that, they are not related at all.




The biggies under discrimination law are housing, employment, public services, access to loans etc... not membership in private organizations, many of whom discriminate quite freely and openly. Boy Scouts of America, for example... yes, they have been sued.. and their rights have held up in court... every time.



In that case, there was an argument that was valid enough to go to court to have the case heard... and it failed, strangely enough. In the face of this recent event, why on Earth should we believe that there is a chance a church could be successfully sued for performing marriages, should marriage be removed from government? For most organizations in this country, its perfectly legal to discriminate (unless their area/industry/whatever is specified in discrimination law).


I thought someone like you being a Libertarian would be against Hate crimes laws? :confused:

I.e. More governmental intervention.

Japandroid
05-28-2009, 06:04 AM
I thought someone like you being a Libertarian would be against Hate crimes laws? :confused:

I.e. More governmental intervention.

lolwut

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 06:28 AM
lolwut



I thought my meaning was pretty plain

I will make even more simple for you.


Hate crime laws = more governmental intervention.


Wilbur is a self proclaimed libertarian


Libertarians dislike to much govt intervention or am i wrong? silly me its prolly only about drug and gay marriage that libertarians dislike govt intervention.

wilbur
05-28-2009, 07:55 AM
Do not take my post as an endorsement of hate-crime law. I think the law is sufficient without them, though they arent quite as bad as they are made out.

Hate crimes are poorly understood , so much so that they are repeatedly misused in other arguments.... and not just here... the WND and like-minded news sites repeatedly drum up fear of persecution (religious or otherwise) based on hate-crime law myths... many dishonest media pundits perpetuate the myths surrounding them, instead of correcting them.

Myths include things like "If group X gets protected status, than it will be a hate crime to criticize them", or "This new hate crime law will criminalize [insert perfectly legal behavior here]", and on and on.

My post was a response to such a misconception, being misused in another argument.

wilbur
05-28-2009, 07:57 AM
They don't have to sue successfully, they can just keep sueing and forcing the organization or church to pay lawyers to defend against the suits. And eventually, if they find a judge who cares more about "empathy" than the law, they might win a case or 2, and get huge fines and penalties laid against them. After all, when they are constantly on the defensive, they have to win every single time, while the groups on offense only need to win once.

All can be done with or without hate crime laws. Discrimination law is what allows one to be sued for discrimination.

wilbur
05-28-2009, 08:12 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Anyone can apply for a loan..

Yes, anyone can apply, but discrimination law requires that one cannot deny a loans based on the religion, race, nationality, orientation, gender, etc of the applicant. Things like this were a systemic problem in this country at one time, and still can be from time to time. While discriminated peoples were equal under the law, they could effectively be prevented from being able to function in society by private enterprise, who would not rent houses to them, give them loans, allow them access to essential services, employ them etc.

Discrimination laws are meant to address those problems, but do not force organizations like churches, or private clubs from discriminating for any reason.

Hate-crime status only comes into play once you have been charged with a crime. They do not criminalize anything.



As far as the Boy Scouts, hooray for their rights holding up.. The Boy Scouts teaches boys to be men. This is not a job for queers, and only an uppity queer would ever sue to try to be something he's not.

Yes, we all know heterosexuals do not file frivolous lawsuits, ever. Any hetero that does is probably a closet homo! :rolleyes:

stsinner
05-28-2009, 08:36 AM
Yes, anyone can apply, but discrimination law requires that one cannot deny a loans based on the religion, race, nationality, orientation, gender, etc of the applicant. Things like this were a systemic problem in this country at one time, and still can be from time to time. While discriminated peoples were equal under the law, they could effectively be prevented from being able to function in society by private enterprise, who would not rent houses to them, give them loans, allow them access to essential services, employ them etc.

Discrimination laws are meant to address those problems, but do not force organizations like churches, or private clubs from discriminating for any reason.

Hate-crime status only comes into play once you have been charged with a crime. They do not criminalize anything.



Yes, we all know heterosexuals do not file frivolous lawsuits, ever. Any hetero that does is probably a closet homo! :rolleyes:

In my experience, having worked in two banks, people have never been discriminated against based on their race when it comes to loans.. The fact that minorities traditionally don't make enough to pay a mortgage or have a poor credit score moreso than whites is just the fact. As far as being denied a loan due to homosexuality, how would the loan officer ever know this unless the applicant volunteered that information or acted, as so many homosexuals do, disgustingly like a flamer. Even then I've never seen that considered at part of the loan verification process.

I can guarantee you that if a person qualifies for a loan, the bank is more than happy to extend that line of credit. If you fall into a class of notoriously risky people, then the bank has to protect their assets.. All legislation forcing loans to be given to more people does is cause loans to be defaulted on and banks to take losses resulting in the kind of thing we're seeing with ACORN right now.

noonwitch
05-28-2009, 08:56 AM
If your state has tough penalties for violent crimes, hate crimes then only applies to less serious crimes. I think intent matters, when it comes to things like malicious destruction of property and such. But, if hate crimes laws apply to white people who burn crosses on black people's front yards or straight men who beat a man to death for being gay, then they apply to gang graffiti, to a gang of black kids who beat up a white kid, and so on.

Hate crimes should never be applied to situations that are speech-related, though. It's not free speech to paint a swastika on someone's garage door, it's malicious destruction of property.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 09:01 AM
If your state has tough penalties for violent crimes, hate crimes then only applies to less serious crimes. I think intent matters, when it comes to things like malicious destruction of property and such. But, if hate crimes laws apply to white people who burn crosses on black people's front yards or straight men who beat a man to death for being gay, then they apply to gang graffiti, to a gang of black kids who beat up a white kid, and so on.

Hate crimes should never be applied to situations that are speech-related, though. It's not free speech to paint a swastika on someone's garage door, it's malicious destruction of property.


No intent only matters in things like 1st degree murder , 2nd degree etc. It should never matter in regards to what the person committing the crimes is "feeling". If I kill some obnoxious liberal then i should be charged as such, not because I hate that persons guts. Funny thing I sure dont hear much about minority's being charged with a hate crime. (sure they happen but i have never heard about it)

wilbur
05-28-2009, 09:07 AM
No intent only matters in things like 1st degree murder , 2nd degree etc. It should never matter in regards to what the person committing the crimes is "feeling". If I kill some obnoxious liberal then i should be charged as such, not because I hate that persons guts. Funny thing I sure dont hear much about minority's being charged with a hate crime. (sure they happen but i have never heard about it)

Its not so much what the perpetrator is "feeling", but the feeling that a crime could instill in the community. The theory is that hate crimes cause more unrest and emotional damage to a community.

But that still suffers from the same very problematic subjective valuations of peoples feelings. The law does have to do this in many cases, but all the impressions in our ability to assess these very subjective matters are compounded and multiplied in the case of hate-crimes.

Who is to say that a random murder isnt more unnerving for an entire community when compared with a racially or religiously motivated murder? I find random murder, and hate-driven murder both pretty equally disturbing.

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 09:11 AM
Its not so much what the perpetrator is "feeling", but the feeling that a crime could instill in the community. The theory is that hate crimes cause more unrest and emotional damage to a community.

But that still suffers from the same very problematic subjective valuations of peoples feelings...

Who is to say that a random murder isnt more unnerving for an entire community when compared with a racially or religiously motivated murder? I find random murder, and hate-driven murder both pretty equally disturbing.

I dont think a communities mood should come into it, for example if a town has had a rash of home invasions by people of color should they be charged with a hate crime? The town would be rightly in fear.

hazlnut
05-28-2009, 09:36 AM
In my experience, having worked in two banks, people have never been discriminated against based on their race when it comes to loans..

Then the banks you worked for were the exception not the rule.



The fact that minorities traditionally don't make enough to pay a mortgage or have a poor credit score moreso than whites is just the fact. As far as being denied a loan due to homosexuality, how would the loan officer ever know this unless the applicant volunteered that information or acted, as so many homosexuals do, disgustingly like a flamer. Even then I've never seen that considered at part of the loan verification process.

You have any data to back up your facts?


I can guarantee you that if a person qualifies for a loan, the bank is more than happy to extend that line of credit. If you fall into a class of notoriously risky people, then the bank has to protect their assets.. All legislation forcing loans to be given to more people does is cause loans to be defaulted on and banks to take losses resulting in the kind of thing we're seeing with ACORN right now.

What legislation exactly. Show me the specific wording that FORCES banks to give out loans to UNQUALIFIED applicants.

The Subprime mortgage crisis was driven by greed.

And what does Acorn have to do with this?

Lars1701a
05-28-2009, 09:47 AM
Then the banks you worked for were the exception not the rule.




You have any data to back up your facts?



What legislation exactly. Show me the specific wording that FORCES banks to give out loans to UNQUALIFIED applicants.

The Subprime mortgage crisis was driven by greed.

And what does Acorn have to do with this?


google CRA

Rebel Yell
05-28-2009, 10:01 AM
Yes, anyone can apply, but discrimination law requires that one cannot deny a loans based on the religion, race, nationality, orientation, gender, etc of the applicant. Things like this were a systemic problem in this country at one time, and still can be from time to time. While discriminated peoples were equal under the law, they could effectively be prevented from being able to function in society by private enterprise, who would not rent houses to them, give them loans, allow them access to essential services, employ them etc.

Discrimination laws are meant to address those problems, but do not force organizations like churches, or private clubs from discriminating for any reason.

Hate-crime status only comes into play once you have been charged with a crime. They do not criminalize anything.



Yes, we all know heterosexuals do not file frivolous lawsuits, ever. Any hetero that does is probably a closet homo! :rolleyes:

Then you must think this is good cause for a discrimination lawsuit.


One hundred eighteen candidates took the tests, 27 of them black.[2] After the tests were scored, no black candidates scored high enough to qualify for consideration for the promotions. In response, the city decided not to promote anyone, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I think discrimination laws have a place in society. Hate Crime legislation just makes sure that all are not equal. If you're gonna do harm to another human being you better make damned sure they're the same color as you.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 10:12 AM
Do not take my post as an endorsement of hate-crime law. I think the law is sufficient without them, though they arent quite as bad as they are made out.

Hate crimes are poorly understood , so much so that they are repeatedly misused in other arguments.... and not just here... the WND and like-minded news sites repeatedly drum up fear of persecution (religious or otherwise) based on hate-crime law myths... many dishonest media pundits perpetuate the myths surrounding them, instead of correcting them.

Myths include things like "If group X gets protected status, than it will be a hate crime to criticize them", or "This new hate crime law will criminalize [insert perfectly legal behavior here]", and on and on.

My post was a response to such a misconception, being misused in another argument.

I firmly believe that hate crimes laws violate the equal protection clause in the constitution by making certain classes of people more protected than others.

Lager
05-28-2009, 10:20 AM
Hate crime laws are a way to inject emotion into the neutrality and objectivity of the criminal justice system. For example: That crime causes more outrage and emotion in me than another would, so therefore I believe it deserves even more punishment.

We have to face the fact that emotion plays a big part in the lives of permanent adolescents. To deny that, is to deny a basic need in today's society. We may believe that the law should remain neutral, but that would be forcing our values on others who might not share them.

samurai
05-28-2009, 12:03 PM
I firmly believe that hate crimes laws violate the equal protection clause in the constitution by making certain classes of people more protected than others.

I 100% agree. It just makes no sense. Why is it worse if a black guy beats up a white guy and steals his wallet, and calls the white guy a "honky cracker'" during the crime vs just beating him up and stealing his wallet because he wants the money? Same goes if its a white guy beating up a black guy and stealing his wallet and calling him the n-word when demanding the money. It's ridiculous that 1 word should enhance a crime to something worse than what it was.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 12:09 PM
I 100% agree. It just makes no sense. Why is it worse if a black guy beats up a white guy and steals his wallet, and calls the white guy a "honky cracker'" during the crime vs just beating him up and stealing his wallet because he wants the money? Same goes if its a white guy beating up a black guy and stealing his wallet and calling him the n-word when demanding the money. It's ridiculous that 1 word should enhance a crime to something worse than what it was.

Consider this, if someone paints a swastika on my front door, that person is guilty of misdemeanor vandelism. Should I happen to be Jewish then that crime is now a felony hate crime. Same event but much different out come. There is a presupposition on the intent of the person who vandelized my front door that doesn't come to play should I not be Jewish. That is not, by any standard, equal treatment under the law for either the victim or the vandel.

stsinner
05-28-2009, 12:11 PM
Consider this, if someone paints a swastika on my front door, that person is guilty of misdemeanor vandelism. Should I happen to be Jewish then that crime is now a felony hate crime. Same event but much different out come. There is a presupposition on the intent of the person who vandelized my front door that doesn't come to play should I not be Jewish. That is not, by any standard, equal treatment under the law for either the victim or the vandel.

That's a great point... But it will be lost on the Liberals, as common sense and facts don't matter-only feelings matter.

FlaGator
05-28-2009, 12:22 PM
That's a great point... But it will be lost on the Liberals, as common sense and facts don't matter-only feelings matter.

I morn the death of common sense every time I read the libs who post on CU.