ecaman  |
Obama just signed the defense appropriations bill. Part of this bill makes it a federal crime to commit a "hate crime". A question for anyone who cares to respond: why is it worse to commit a crime of violence against someone because they are a member of a group spelled out in the legislation than it is to commit the same crime against someone who's not a member of such a group? Why is it a lesser offense to assault a heterosexual anglo saxon male than than it is to assault a gay person, regardless of their sex, or an African-American, or any other minority spelled out in the legislation? The assault affects the recipient of it exactly the same. There are already laws on the books covering the crime of assault. Punishment is spelled out in these laws. Now we have a federal law saying that such an assault is worse when committed against a member of a group specified in the just-signed legislation. I don't understand the reasoning behind legislation such as this, and I don't agree with it. I would invite comments, whether you agree or disagree. He who laughs last thinks slowest.
|
ebear
i think the differance is..if assault a white anglo saxon man for any other reason its one thing...but if you assault him for just being a white anglosaxon. then its more of a specific reason behind it. example..if i catch a guy in my house and shoot him its still murder, justifiable.. but if i kill that man just because he's gay or white, there is no justication.
ebear
i will kill him , her or it...justifiably dead
ecaman
What I'm asking is, why is it a worse offense to assault me than it is to assault a homosexual? And if the homosexual is a member of a minority, it's even more of a crime. This is just not right. The assault would hurt me just as bad as it would a homosexual minority member.
photobear6
it's just typical lawyerese double speak to screw you with. Assault is assault this is just more equal rights bullshit.
ecaman
Yeah, they always use that "equal rights" argument. In the case of this bill that's just bullshit. If it were really "equal" rights, whoever assaulted a homosexual would face no more punishment than if they'd assaulted a heterosexual. And that's the way I think it should be.
BluesHarp
if you smack a fag because they are a fag, then you are targeting that person. Singling out that one person because of their differences. You are right in saying that this isn't right. If someone smacks me in the head for being a white, Protestant tax payer, there is no law, other than the 3rd degree asault law that will protect me. If that same thing happens to a homo, then it is not just a 3rd degree assault, it is a felony. That isn't equal, that makes him far superior in the eyes of the law, and that is discrimination against me.
White men who follow the rules, keep jobs, pay taxes and remain faithful to their wives don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell in this country.