Common cause for Christians and Gays

[Kerwin]

Now I see that you are still claiming that the law only covers "protected classes" and that "protected classes" are minorities. How many times do you have to be told that that is not the case.

So you are saying that hate based on certain criteria is all right while hate based on other criteria is not.

It is not as bad to hook a man to the back of a truck a drag him for miles as it is to hook a man who the perpetrator labels with a racial epileptic to the back of a truck and drags for miles.

It is not as horrible to burn at the stake a women as it is to burn at the stake a woman the perpetrator labels with a label regarding her sexual actions.

Interesting though I have to point out you are speaking of aggravating circumstances and not an actual additional crime.

 

[OllieFranz]

So you are saying that hate based on certain criteria is all right while hate based on other criteria is not.

It is not as bad to hook a man to the back of a truck a drag him for miles as it is to hook a man who the perpetrator labels with a racial epileptic to the back of a truck and drags for miles.

It is not as horrible to burn at the stake a women as it is to burn at the stake a woman the perpetrator labels with a label regarding her sexual actions.

Interesting though I have to point out you are speaking of aggravating circumstances and not an actual additional crime.

Now you are getting back to the claim that it is only words. I thought you agreed that terrorism is more than just words. That there is merit in having laws against incitement to riot and intimidation.

It seems every time we get through to you on who is protected you forget what you have already agreed to concerning what the illegal action is, and vice versa.

You simply do not want to believe that the law is what it is.

And it is a separate law with a separate judgment and a separate sentence administered only if the jury finds him guilty of that separate crime. If it were simply aggravating circumstances then it would be entirely up to the judge after conviction whether or not to add to the sentence.

 

[Texas Lynn]

...I am not a protected class according to the Hate Laws...

If you are targeted because you are white, male, heterosexual etc....you are convered; or, more correctly, your assailants are (they can be charged with a 'hate crime' endorsement to their indictments which would increase the penalties; and if you were so targeted, that would be the right thing for the prosecutor to seek.

FYI, most crimes do not go to trial; those that go to indictment mostly get settled. if there's a hate crime endorsement to an indictment it means the plea bargain will result in longer sentences. The purpose is to show such things are unacceptable. Those who oppose hate crimes generally want the victimization of those they disdain to be acceptable.

 

[Kerwin]

Now you are getting back to the claim that it is only words. I thought you agreed that terrorism is more than just words. That there is merit in having laws against incitement to riot and intimidation.

It is not an important point since we have laws against “incitement to riot” and “intimidation” as well as against murder and the fact that a person expresses racism or some other form of hate while doing so should at the most be considered an aggravating circumstance of the crime and not an additional crime. I believe that most prosecutors would bring such evidence into the sentences phrase of a crime in order to get a heavier sentence. Take the individual who chooses to rob old people because they appear more vulnerable. Do you think any competent prosecutor would neglect to point out the hatred involved in that. Take the bullies who intimidate someone because they are different. Should the prosecutor ignore the “different” because it is not a protected category.

And it is a separate law with a separate judgment and a separate sentence administered only if the jury finds him guilty of that separate crime

And yet you have given no proof that it is a separate crime. Hate is merely a motive associate with a crime in these cases. Can you prosecute the hate without another crime attached.

If it were simply aggravating circumstances then it would be entirely up to the judge after conviction whether or not to add to the sentence.

And that is the crux of the matter since the legislation has no faith in judges to do the “right” thing and thus seek to take the judges power unto themselves.

I would also be happy with stricter sentencing for the crimes in first place.