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.
A crime motivated by the victim's Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Religon is the DEFINITION of a hate crime.
Not federally. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is NOT illegal federally. I know because the Republican majority shot it down the past few times it's come up and President Bush threatens a veto every damn time as well. And I know this because I consider it to be a very important issue.
From wikipedia: "In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. Measures to add perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list have been proposed, but failed."
Also from wikipedia: "On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, or LLEHCPA), HR 1592, which would expand existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which would drop the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity. Similar legislation passed in the Senate on September 27, 2007 but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. This would be President Bush's tenth veto."
It was wrong of them to do this to the Church but I can see why they did it.
I would be very angry if people voted on my right to marry and I would expect the Churches to put up a fight if they pumped millions into this.
Overall, it was wrong but I can see why it happened. I wish none of these things happened.
However, 2 wrongs dont make a right. The country is becoming more aware as far as gay rights and marriage so it will happen at some point that gays are allowed to marry. Burning a church for any reason is something I totally disagree with.
A crime motivated by the victim's Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Religon is the DEFINITION of a hate crime.
Yes it is, but that doesn't define this incident... they were targeted for their political actions, not for being Catholic. Otherwise, wouldn't you have heard about crimes like this prior to Prop 8? Ironically, they targeted a gay-friendly church, so it was kind of a moot point.
By the way, how do you know the perpetrators are gay? The OP says "GAYS vandalize SF Castro church," but I don't believe any news reports said the vandals were gay. I oppose Prop 8, and I'm as straight as an arrow - but not narrow.
Last edited by gizmo980; 01-06-2009 at 11:52 PM..
Reason: Whoops... meant to say I OPPOSE the prop!
Not federally. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is NOT illegal federally. I know because the Republican majority shot it down the past few times it's come up and President Bush threatens a veto every damn time as well. And I know this because I consider it to be a very important issue.
From wikipedia: "In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. Measures to add perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list have been proposed, but failed."
Also from wikipedia: "On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, or LLEHCPA), HR 1592, which would expand existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which would drop the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity. Similar legislation passed in the Senate on September 27, 2007 but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. This would be President Bush's tenth veto."
A. Please note the highlighted word in the above - as that is what is relevant in this case.
B. I'm curious - you seem knowledgable on the issue - what is the CA state law? Is sexual Orientation included?
However, 2 wrongs dont make a right. The country is becoming more aware as far as gay rights and marriage so it will happen at some point that gays are allowed to marry. Burning a church for any reason is something I totally disagree with.
The church wasn't burned... they painted graffiti on the wall.
However, 2 wrongs dont make a right. The country is becoming more aware as far as gay rights and marriage so it will happen at some point that gays are allowed to marry. Burning a church for any reason is something I totally disagree with.
I agree with this. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I completely condemn the attacks, but I don't think they came out of left field. It doesn't make them right, but I understand the reasoning.
Yes it is, but that doesn't define this incident... they were targeted for their political actions, not for being Catholic. Otherwise, wouldn't you have heard about crimes like this prior to Prop 8? Ironically, they targeted a gay-friendly church, so it was kind of a moot point.
By the way, how do you know the perpetrators are gay? The OP says "GAYS vandalize SF Castro church," but I don't believe any news reports said the vandals were gay. I support Prop 8, and I'm as straight as an arrow - but not narrow.
Your may be undercutting your own weak defense of the act....If the Church is gay friendly, what was their stance on Prop 8.? If they were No or remained silent, they would be being attacked purely for their religous association
A. Please note the highlighted word in the above - as that is what is relevant in this case.
I just wrote this in my last post, but to say it again, they weren't targeted for BEING Catholic... so no, that highlighted word isn't fully relevant. I don't agree with their actions, btw, but labeling it a hate crime is a stretch.
Quote:
B. I'm curious - you seem knowledgable on the issue - what is the CA state law? Is sexual Orientation included?
Targeting a church just because many Christians voted for Prop 8 sounds like a hate crime to me. For all these vandals know, members of this church could have voted no on Prop 8.
good call.
Quote:
The message was both hurtful and confusing, said some congregants and neighbors, because the church boasts a largely gay and lesbian parish and its leaders were vocal opponents of Prop. 8.
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.
