The newer, better, worse, hate crimes bill
First, the obvious:
Per Eric Holder, the new hate crimes bill was not intended to protect everyone equally under the law.
I got a problem with that. The ONLY intent of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to insure everyone is protected equally by the law. For the US Attorney General to not recognize the ONLY intent of the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights is absurd. Being as it obviously discriminates, it should most likely be struck down if anyone cares to challenge it in court. Not that the previous version was any better, this one’s just worse. Now, before all the gay rights people get all worked up, it’s not because of who it supports. It’s the fact that it’s a pretty stupidly worded piece of legislation.
In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.
Got that?
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
OK, so a preacher recites this part and condemns all immoral behaviors, the members shout “AMEN!”. One of them gets a little carried away and kills a homosexual, a greedy person, a drunk, a slanderer, and a swindler. Killing the homosexual would get him in a lot of trouble. Killing the greedy person, the drunk, the slanderer, or the swindler, not so much. Unless of course, the greedy person, the drunk, the slanderer, and the swindler were homosexual. Then he’s really screwed. It doesn’t stop there:
“We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!”" (Qur’an 7:80-82)
Islam, ditto, if not worse.
Judaism?
“[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to’eva” (Leviticus 18:22).
Ditto.
I’m not EVEN going to go into the more radical beliefs. Some of them are rather harsh and unforgiving. But, the way this law is written, if the person committing the crime attended a church, and the church condemns homosexual activity, the leader of the church, at the very least, could be held liable. I can’t wait till someone claims “God told me to.:. Then it will get real interesting real quick.
Now, of course, where this bugs me is I am an average white guy, not overtly religious, not gay, and not from a protected ethnicity ( Indians and whatnot ). And, to top it off, I don’t hate any group of people. So, hate crime bills just don’t do much for me. But, what if I wonder into the wrong bar in a big city? Let’s say, it’s a bar full of black gay Jews who hate Americans. Yeah, I know, broad sweeping generalization as there are black gay Jewish bars all over the country. But, it serves a purpose. One of the members of this bar full of black gay Jews takes offense to my life choices of being an average white heterosexual male and does me great harm. That is not a hate crime under Eric Holder’s interpretation of what the law should be in the United States.
To me, it most definitely is no different than singling out a person because they are gay. I have a real problem with Eric Holder discriminating against groups of people for any reason whatsoever. Some ignorant hick doing it is one thing, the person in charge of assuring the law is applied under the terms of the contract he agreed to enforce for all of the United States is totally another. Eric Holder should not be OK with this, he should be screaming mad against it.
How’s about this for a concept? Any crime committed against another person because of who that person is shall be considered a hate crime.
Now, under MY scenario, and do understand, this is MY scenario, even that kid that beat the other kid to death in Chicago a couple of weeks ago would be prosecuted as a hate crime. As it is now, it won’t be. However, I would argue that the kid was beat to death because he wasn’t “like” the boys who beat him. He wasn’t a gang-banging piece of trash. However, gang banging pieces of trash killing good kids isn’t a hate crime in Eric Holder’s mind so long as those doing the killing weren’t white. If they had been white, all hell would have befallen them. But, since they weren’t white, in order to really get them put away for a long time, they’ll have to claim they thought the victim was gay. If they expressed that thought at any time publicly, watch out.
Wild concept huh? Treating everyone equally. That’ll get the support of no one. Especially this administration.
This is flat out an attack on all religion. Christians seem to think they are being targeted, but it’s not just them. It’s all religion. Any situation where a person is speaking to a group of people on the issue of morality runs the very real risk of incriminating themselves if anyone listening to them commits a crime.
In the long run I think this will be struck down in the Supreme Court. Not so much because it discriminates against non-gays. But, because it infringes on the free rights of speech of others who might be legally implicated under this law for expressing their view. Regardless of what John Conyers and Eric Holder desire, Free Speech is still a right in this country.
