#1 New Federal ‘Hate Crimes’ Law Challenged On Constitutional Grounds
02-03-2010, 10:32 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
A conservative civil liberties group is challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
"O'Bummers Payoff For The Gay Lobby along with Don't Ask !"
"This Thing Doesn't Stand A Chance Before The Supreme Court And they know It !"
The new law, attached to a defense authorization bill that President Obama signed on October 28, 2009, makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center says it elevates people engaged in deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.
The lawsuit naming U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of three pastors and the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.
All of the plaintiffs “take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching,” the Law Center said in a news release.
“There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law,’ said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.
“This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election,” Thompson continued.
“The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.
It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”
02-05-2010, 09:35 AM
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
Ostensibly, (although one can cite many instances where it is not true) we are ALL supposed to exist under equal treatment and protection under the Law. To grant extra protection to any one group (no matter how "noble" sounding) is and should be treated as unConstitutional.
Even the term "Hate Crime" is so nefarious in definition that it can be perverted into anything. When, if so, does opposition to the Party in power become a "Hate Crime"? In fact, the term is widely used by Dems, at present, for the language and antics that the "Tea Partiers" use to demonstrate their opposition. Further, it is common, in "Progressive" circles to deem anyone who says ANYTHING against their duly appointed and annointed Messiah "Hate Speech".
This is nothing more than "PC Speak" writ large. For those of you old enough, or "classics" oriented enough to have read 1984, you might see a trend toward "NewSpeak" here.
I could say that would be "double ungood" in my opinion...... but I won't. ()
LSThe first sign of impending serfdom is when you trade your self determination, your individual responsibility and your vote to the Government in return for subsistance. -LS-
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|