The New Hate Crimes Bill..Plan to remove Freedom of Religion

Paving the Way for Homosexuals to gain civil rights as a protected class

from JoeUser Forums

Our government is a republic, and in a republic we elect men and women to represent us, {piss poor job that they do} in our legislative bodies and we elect executives to make sure that laws passed by the legislatures are carried out. If our laws are not upheld, anarchy would be the result.

We citizens vote and MOST of us are looking for honest and wise representatives who will RESPECT the consent of the GOVERNED. However it is becoming almost impossible to find these people with so many "self seekers" among those elected to high office.

Last May the Democratic run House passed a bill {Federal Hate Crimes} that mandates further penalties for crimes involving sexual orientation or gender identity. If it passes the Senate it will make Homosexuality and Gender Identity a civil rights issue.

I believe this is a very dangerous bill as it would have ramification on Religion, meaning if a pastor, priest, rabbi says from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin they could be tried for a hate crime.

Representative Lamar Smith {R TEXAS} said of this bill that " criminal killing a Homosexual will be treated more harshly that a criminal that kills a cop, or a child or a senior citizen or any other person" I believe all people should be treated equally under the eyes of the law.

The republicans offered 25 amendments to clarify and and improve the bill but were denied by the Democratic run house to even be heard.

Dan Lundgren {R CALIFORNIA} asked for further clarification of gender identity, the Democrats refused to discuss it.

Randy Forbes {R VIRGINIA} said that "our military is being attacked in America, being spit on and beaten, in several areas are told not to wear their uniforms while on pass or leave" He wanted to include the military in this hate crimes bill, once again the Democrats refused to discuss it. So much for "looking out and supporting out men and women in uniform huh?"

Other Republican representatives wanted to add senior citizens to this bill, once again the Democrats refused to discuss it. So much for the Liberals taking care of "out honored old folk"

Other Republicans wanted to add pregnant women to the bill, Once again the Democrats that have no problem with murdering children in the womb would not allow discussion about protecting the expectant mothers.

Representative Mike Pence {R INDIANA} presented an important amendment about freedom of religion, concerned about the possibility of religious folk being tried for hate crimes by being faithful to their religion and espousing that homosexuality is a sin, again denied By the Democrats.

Rev. Lou Sheldon head of the Traditional Values Coalition {who was present at the bills vote} said " By refusing to accept any of these amendments the Democrats have Proven their purpose of removing freedom of religion from the constitution. I heartily Agree.

AS Thomas Jefferson once warned "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." We need to remember his words and see that laws passed by our representative are fair to everyone.

 

"
7,101 views 66 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
yoo hoo? Democrats?? Party of the people??? where are you?? nothing to say about your party now? hmmmmmm????
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not that homosexuals should be less valued, but definitely not more valued.

By the way, what happens when you're straight for a while, and then become a homosexual in college? Did you have less value before, and now have more value? What if you are a homosexual, and go to a program to get straight again, and it works? Are you now less valued, or does the homosexual label follow you forever? What is someone thinks I'm a homosexual, but I'm not? Is an assault on me worth the same as an assault on a homosexual, or is it just a normal assault? What if it's a homosexual soldier attacked? Does he have to admit it to get special privileges? Will he get kicked out if he does so?

What if a guy has never had sex with anyone. Is he still considered protected, because we don't really know, he could be a homosexual? Would he have to show he was a homosexual? How would he do that? Could he provoke someone to attack him just so that he could get laid to prove he's a homosexual?
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have always been against hate crime laws.  period.  If you do the crime, the punishment should be the same.  Sadly, I dont see the monkeys in black robes understanding that simple constitutional provision.  And this is just another example of them making some people more equal than others.

What really saddens me (as the clowns in DC are merely sycophants to the special interest groups) is that so many others jump on the band wagon and yell "Yeaaaa!" not realizing that today it is against their pet peeve.  Tomorrow it will be against them.

4 legs good, 2 legs better.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tis a sad day in America when homosexuals are more highly valued than soldiers, old people, pregnant women, and religious freedom.

But hey, at least the Poor Pedro bill is dead for now, so there's at least one reason to smile today.

Not dead yet, wait and see if a DEMONCRAP gets elected to the White house and the get the entire congress again in 2008, poor Pedro will rule America.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: JythierPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
Not that homosexuals should be less valued, but definitely not more valued.

Not according to The Democrat. shoot a cop=bad Shoot a gay= very very very bad I don't understand it.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
I have always been against hate crime laws. period. If you do the crime, the punishment should be the same. Sadly, I dont see the monkeys in black robes understanding that simple constitutional provision. And this is just another example of them making some people more equal than others.
What really saddens me (as the clowns in DC are merely sycophants to the special interest groups) is that so many others jump on the band wagon and yell "Yeaaaa!" not realizing that today it is against their pet peeve. Tomorrow it will be against them.

Wanna get even with someone? have them slap you and hollar Hey I am queer, you just committed a hate crime.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

yoo hoo? Democrats?? Party of the people??? where are you?? nothing to say about your party now? hmmmmmm????


yoo, hoo, here I am did you call? I don't think you understand what the hate crimes legislation is for. It gives added federal funds to local law enforcement when dealing with hate crimes. That's it. Think of hate crimes as lynching. I don't know anyone who can defend lynching but somehow they can condemn hate crime legislation. Hate crimes are different because it tries to put people in their place and cultivate a culture of fear. This will not replace the first amendment right to free speech. This law is about violent acts not about speech.

But don't worry prematurely, it still have to pass the senate and avoid a Presidential veto. Chances are it won't make it to law.

God loves homosexuals and so do I.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Think of hate crimes as lynching.


Good point. Now, google the last lynching. And then answer why we are wasting money on nostalgia.

ANd violent crimes? Google Philadelphia and Hate crimes. Perhaps you need to look at what it is being used for (outside of the sensational headlines) and how your free speech just got hate crimed out of existance.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
LocamamaJune 28, 2007 20:12:03


yoo hoo? Democrats?? Party of the people??? where are you?? nothing to say about your party now? hmmmmmm????


yoo, hoo, here I am did you call? I don't think you understand what the hate crimes legislation is for.


I fully understand after all I researched this. Now take a baby and slam its head against a wall 20 times, that is not as serious as slamming a homos head against the wall ONCE! that is your idea of fair right?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Dr GuyJune 28, 2007 20:37:51Reply


how your free speech just got hate crimed out of existance.


ya see doc that's the point here IT'S NOT HER freedom of speech at risk. YET.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
that is your idea of fair right?


no, it gives added federal financial support to local law enforcement. It doesn't mean that other violent crimes will not continue to be prosecuted.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is a ridiculous jump to make. i don't like this bill either but to say it's an attack on freedom of religion? how? what religion teaches its followers to commit crimes against homosexuals? i can almost guaruntee the democrats did not have removing one of the freedoms our country was founded on in mind when they made this bill.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is a ridiculous jump to make. i don't like this bill either but to say it's an attack on freedom of religion? how?


Not a jump - reality
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: stillkoontzPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
this is a ridiculous jump to make. i don't like this bill either but to say it's an attack on freedom of religion? how? what religion teaches its followers to commit crimes against homosexuals? i can almost guaruntee the democrats did not have removing one of the freedoms our country was founded on in mind when they made this bill.

Who are you to guarntee anything? for one> For two it plainly states that hate speech is a crime, it gives homosexuals civil rights much like when blacks won civil rights, Try going on national television and saying " Niggers are lazy and sinful people they are the downfall of America, Niggers and their nigger offspring are an abomination against God" see what happens to you!

I hate the word Nigger, But I was making a point to someone that obvoiusly does not have a clue about this bill.

If I offended anyone by useing the N word as an example I deeply apoligize.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
what religion teaches its followers to commit crimes against homosexuals?


Islam.

Good point, but you don.t have to commit a CRIME per say just use hate speech against a group of people granted civil rights protection.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: LocamamaPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
that is your idea of fair right?


no, it gives added federal financial support to local law enforcement. It doesn't mean that other violent crimes will not continue to be prosecuted.

yes but not prosecuted the same way or with the same penalities. Now do not be dense Amy I knowe better.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: little-whipPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
The Philadelphia Eleven were later exonerated of all charges.



WWW Link

ah but if this federal bill passes they just might not.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

ah but if this federal bill passes they just might not.

Exonerated or not, Lawyers do not work Pro Bono.  Their speech was curtailed by the arrest and the cost of defending themselves against what essentially is a violation of the First Amendment.

The law is still on the books, has been used, and may well be used again.  My point was in contradicting Stillkoontz's arguement that it was a "jump" to assume it would be used that way, when in fact it already had been.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just another example of passing more laws instead of enforcing those already on the books. Last I checked, assault and battery is already illegal, why pass laws making it More Illegal in certain circumstances?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is the possibility that is some area of America, assaulting an homosexual, while illegal, is not considered immoral by the majority. Homosexualy, while legal, is considered immoral by the majority.

Which means that if someone assaulting an homosexual is tried by a jury of his peers, he has a lot more chance to get out of the loop. Religious group could pressure the jury into findind the smallest technicality to allow the assaulter walk away scott free, just like white people who killed black were allowed in the past.

The bill do not protect pregnant woman, cops, eldery or the military because in no region of america is it somewhat morally acceptable to assault one of these group. So, if someone assault a pregnant woman, I can't see any pressure group pushing for the freedom of the attacker.

I can't say the same about homosexual. Some of them really live a dangerous live just by being what they are. Not because they are gay, but because the society around them won't accept what they are, and find acceptance in violently harrassing them.


You just want to bash the Dems.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which means that if someone assaulting an homosexual is tried by a jury of his peers, he has a lot more chance to get out of the loop. Religious group could pressure the jury into findind the smallest technicality to allow the assaulter walk away scott free, just like white people who killed black were allowed in the past.


If there is a predisposition to allow a perpertrator to walk, slapping on additional charges are not going to change their minds.

And it is not a question of "wanting" to bash dems. It is the unavoidable way they set themselves up for it.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
If there is a predisposition to allow a perpertrator to walk, slapping on additional charges are not going to change their minds.


Some predisposition are open to interpretation. Slapping more charges on such perpretor will justly make it less likely that a population brainwashed by itolerance against homosexual won't allow someone to get out unpunished.

Hell, these supplemental charges may even completely remove any way out of jail because of biaised support from the jury.


And I think it's a pretty coureageous thing they do, the Dems. They really want to protect an oppressed minority that tries to live in many area where their lives are threathened, and leave themselves open to vicious attack such as this blog in the process. Because people won't try to see the reason behind the bill.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Dr GuyJune 29, 2007 10:57:03


ah but if this federal bill passes they just might not.

Exonerated or not, Lawyers do not work Pro Bono. Their speech was curtailed by the arrest and the cost of defending themselves against what essentially is a violation of the First Amendment.
The law is still on the books, has been used, and may well be used again. My point was in contradicting Stillkoontz's arguement that it was a "jump" to assume it would be used that way, when in fact it already had been.


And Imagine the cost of fighting this in the Federal court system.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some predisposition are open to interpretation. Slapping more charges on such perpretor will justly make it less likely that a population brainwashed by itolerance against homosexual won't allow someone to get out unpunished.


If they are going to let them walk in the first place due to percieved biases, telling them it was "a hate" crime, since they are already biased against the victims, is not going to sway them.

Reverse the field. If someone were brought up on charges for defending a gay person from attack, and that person was then charged with an additional hate crime, would you vote to convict them?

And courage is not defined by trampling on the Bill or rights. If that were so, Napolean and Snowball (along with Stalin and Lenin) would be the most courageous individuals that ever lived. (or existed in a work of fiction).

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, June 29, 2007
Just another example of passing more laws instead of enforcing those already on the books. Last I checked, assault and battery is already illegal, why pass laws making it More Illegal in certain circumstances?

I do not know and My letters and e-mails to big bucks  Diane Finestein and  Barbara Boxer about this have gone unanswered.