Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's absolutely correct. Again, for §245 to even be triggered, the victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity, and the criminal must have targeted the victim BECAUSE the victim was engaging in that federally protected activity. And the law specifically enumerates what "federally protected activity" means. For the red portion, see 18 U.S. Code § 245 (b)(2)(F):
"enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and
(i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and
(ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments
First off, the FoxNews preacher was not attending the parade - he said he was walking at 22nd and Broadway (which, FYI, is NOT on the NYC gay pride parade route). And secondly, neither being on a public street or attending a parade are enumerated as a "federally protected activity" necessary to trigger §245. If you think they are, tell me which subsection enumerates them as such.
Wrong again. In the United States vs Griffin the United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina, Greensboro Division ruled on a civil rights case against the KKK for interfering with an anti-KKK parade. The court determined that the parade was an activity administered by the local government that fell under the following sections of §245:
The statute under which the defendants were indicted reads: (b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(2) any person because of his race, color, or national origin and because he is or has been—
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;
. . . . .
(4) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
(A) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in [subparagraph (2)(B) above].
Now you can try to make the case that this priest should not receive protection under this statute because he is a Christian and both you and the Obama administration do not believe that Christians should be protected by the law, but the law and the precedents established by previous court cases are pretty clear. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Federal Court's final ruling:
An examination of the statute itself and its legislative history leads to the same conclusions. The term "administered" as used in 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) cannot be separated from the surrounding sections of the act. Those sections enumerate the categories of activities to which the protections of this law attach. The debate over the coverage of the bill was extensive and makes it clear that Congress painted with a broad brush in this area. Sponsors and opponents of the bill both agreed that the protection of the act was extremely broad. After listing some of the protected activities that appear in the statute, including those contained in § 245(b)(2)(B), Senator Ervin stated: "That covers about everything except a private home; and it might cover a private home if it were built under a mortgage guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration." 114 Cong.Rec. 386 (1968). The question at bar was addressed by Senator Holland when he stated: "It is very clear to me that when people demonstrate under subsection (3) [§ 245(b)(2)(B)] or (7) of section A, they are certainly to be brought under the law." Id. at 333.
This intent would be thwarted if the jury were allowed to deduce its own interpretation of "administered" based, in part, on Mr. Osborne's testimony. Whether a budget entry appeared for the Death to the Klan parade, or how many police officers were assigned to the parade, are questions which do not bear on whether the parade was administered by the City of Greensboro, as that word appears in the statute. Neither is Mr. Osborne entitled to give his legal opinion on what the word "administered" means as used in this statute. Racially motivated violence during parades, marches, and demonstrations was precisely what this act was designed to redress. To allow juries, on a case-by-case basis, to determine in a vacuum whether a certain activity is covered by the act would thwart Congress' intent in enacting this legislation, as well as the general policy that the will of the legislature should be uniformly applied. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 71, 15 U.S. 273, 281, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895).
And while the court specified racial motivations in this particular case, the religious motivations are an equally important category under this law, and are interchangeable in this instance.
But since this man was a white Catholic Priest who is employed by Fox News, we can all be virtually certain that he will not receive the equal protection under the law that a black person would have certainly been extended by the Obama administration in similar circumstances, as he does not have the correct skin color, political attitudes, employer or religion to pass muster with the hyper-partisan Obama regime.
Religious leaders should only walk down the street holding cakes.
Little Debby cakes for the lesbian in one hand.
Johnny cakes in the other hand for the hairy chested ones.
This is your pass to travel unmolested as long as your not skipping.
This may even be a law, but I can't be sure, because I'm only half way through the research. Another 25,000 laws to go.
Does he need to have a reason? Since when are people not permitted to just show up and watch any parade they like, just to see what is going on and watch the people do their thing, whatever that is?
So father Morris was just strolling down a city street in New York when all of sudden, out of nowhere, a gay-pride parade came along and a person (who father Morris knows is gay) jumps out and spits on him twice.
Father Morris is a bit skimpy on the details, don't you think?
It is unfair to categorize all gay people like this, but there certainly is a growing militancy among the homosexual left that is very ugly. The fact that people have lost their jobs for opposing gay marriage and even received death threats is the absolute worst.
I happen to think that the obnoxious gloating and just plain nastiness on the part of the militant homosexual left will hurt the LGBT movement for a very long time to come. (Even Andrew Sullivan, who is the godfather of gay marriage, warned other gay people that the gay rights movement will suffer if hatred and intolerance is shown towards those who disagree with gay marriage.) While gay marriage was legalized far more quickly than anybody imagined, I believe the next big victory for the homosexual/transgender left will be a long time coming.
"just plain nastiness " Is when they fired a Lesbian woman i grew up with. After 5 years on the job it finally came out and they escorted her to the door.
What? This whole line of discussion started when I said if the spitting occurred, and if was done because he's a Christian, then it most certainly is a hate crime. Christians absolutely should, and absolutely are, covered under §245. The reason this incident doesn't fall under §245 is because he wasn't engaged in any of the enumerated "federally protected activities" - it has nothing to do with his religion.
So father Morris was just strolling down a city street in New York when all of sudden, out of nowhere, a gay-pride parade came along and a person (who father Morris knows is gay) jumps out and spits on him twice.
Father Morris is a bit skimpy on the details, don't you think?
As we saw with the Memories Pizza incident, some of these people are such outrageous A-holes that it really does not sound very surprising at all.
As for me the Gays are a limited group since they cannot reproduce leaving the "One Man and One Woman marriage" to do that.
It's ok because those "one man one woman" marriages keep producing gays.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
