Lawyer: Lesbians’ assault on gay man can’t be hate crime. “The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.” To that we say ‘duh!’
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
Lawyer: Lesbians’ assault on gay man can’t be hate crime. “The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.” To that we say ‘duh!’
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
This website uses cookies.
View Comments (55)
The story said that the lesbians are accused of "using hateful language". How wide could that be interpreted? Could the day come where if someone said publicly that they oppose gay marriage, they could be imprisoned for hate speech? Media liberals have been asking during the contraceptive mandate turmoil, why religious conservatives hate women. If a conservative speaks against abortion, does he or she hate women? Liberals can't tolerate free speech forever, the natural law and common sense would start to prevail and reassert themselves. Hate crime and hate speech laws are primarily vehicles meant to punish conservatives, religious or not, hence the dilemma in situations like the one mentioned above.
It is happening around the world where pastors are imprisoned for speaking agains gay marriage. Where Christian organizations or businesses or conservative businesses are boycotting for the same or other issues. It is happening.
While at the same time, in some countries, (cough, cough,....Islamic), people are executed just for being gay. Isn't there some kind of middle ground that we can find?
The American Framers had a good middle ground. The only true issue was the issue of slavery and then segregation. It lasted for far too long causing IN TRUTH most of the problems we STILL have today. If the Framers had taken a stand against slavery, they could nip the problems in the bud and hence we would have been perfectly middle grounded for a long time and just have to keep pruning the idiots out of government. Unfortunately due to slavery and then segregation not being taken care of at most a decade after the English were off the country, Progressives (like the devil) had a foothold, which increase to this point in time. Think about it, all the Progressive agenda revolved around racism. Obviously you cannot regulate the feelings, beliefs and ideas of others. There will always be racists, but getting rid of slavery and not allowing segregation would have been a great way to stop the Progressive agenda before it even was an idea in the mind of the Democrats and Liberals.
I afre that slavery has had a long term effect on the country, but we need to remeber that slavery was common in the time of the Revolution. Even some Blacks held slaves. Whites were at the least indentured servants, and at worst slaves. Slavery is STILL common in many areas of the world. We cannot use our 20th century sensibilities to judge people from a time some 250-300 years ago.
We can still judge. We needn't judge too harshly, we can still forgive, and we can consider the context. But if we refrain from judging at all, we begin engaging in moral relativism (which operates over time as well as space). If we did not judge the Constitution lacking, in some respect, there'd be no reason for the 13th Ammendment.
It is what it is. We are still the greatest nation in history, and forever will be a magnus opus and a work-in-progress
I gave you a thumbs up because I respect your opinion and I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think you understood what I am saying.
Regardless of it being "common" many of them (Framers) even those that had slaves themselves KNEW that it was a generational problem that would be even worst as time went by. They knew on many issues especially the issues of moral authority that slavery was going to undermine them in the future as they tried to establish themselves in the world. They knew that they should have demolished slavery even then, but they had (legitimate and political) reasons not to do it at that time, HENCE WHY I believe that an additional ten years after the English were off was more than enough time to start the process, even if it took another ten or twenty years. It just went on for far too long.
Just because the use of people as property is "common" even to this day, doesn't make it right, nor does it excuse it even back then. When it goes on for too long it creates generational issues that we see in this country and others. It doesn't matter WHO HAD SLAVES. A black person having a slave is just as wrong. I am not talking about white people here... I am not talking about the commonality of it, I am not talking about the excuses nor the reasons behind it, I am not talking about using sensibilities to judge people or what not. I am not talking about any of that stuff. In fact I have many times defended forefathers on that same issue. What I am talking about is the simple issue of slavery and then segregation being allowed to prosper for far too long in order to allow Progressive footholds that enabled their programs that we are now paying for now. I think that everyone here could agree with that simple premise regardless of the everything else.
If these issues have been nipped as closest to the bud as possible, Progressive strongholds would not have been so strong. Things like hate crimes hark back to segregation (and slavery) and those conditions that went on for far too long are used to explain or excuse the creation and execution of those laws. Then gay people for some reason want to get on the bandwagon and have the nerve to equate their gayness to the nature of being black and descendants of slaves. Seriously? Middle ground is possible, but it would have been easier had the status quo been demolished. That way a Progressive couldn't say: "Well due to the hundreds of years of slavery and segregation...." everytime they want to excuse some program.
I absolutely agree that slavery of anyone is wrong. I am just not sure that the folks in the 1600-1700's were well educated or thoughtful enough to snap to all the problems it would cause down the line. Some certainly did. But remebr this is a time when most people were illiterate, and most time was spenmt simply trying to survive. Even Maslow recognized that people don't do higher level thinking and assessing until they have more basic needs securely in hand. In America, continued segregation was the bigger problem, as the slaves were supposedly "free" but weren't. It caused resentment, anger and hate to grow and fester. And anger about reconstruction made the split between the races even more of a problem. Just remember, folks like the KKK didn't just go after blacks. THey also went after Jews, who as a rule are white. It was the idea of the "other" that they fought tooth and nail.\, no matter who it was.
"Even Maslow recognized that people don’t do higher level thinking and assessing until they have more basic needs securely in hand." That had very little to do with the majority of citizens in the US at this point in time, especially not from the Puritan point of view. Children could do both: work and study. Also you are saying that as if by the time of independence people in their majority were still living in huts or something. By this time there were many developed cities and states and with them universities and academies.
"In America, continued segregation was the bigger problem, as the slaves were supposedly “free” but weren’t." I disagree. Slavery lasted four hundred years or so. Without slavery there would be no segregation to speak off. Without long standing slavery that lead to a civil war, there would have been no long standing segregation. If the US had taken the light and said we are now free from a King, we will now make ALL PEOPLE FREE and let them pursue their happiness, it would have meant so much in chaging the attitudes of the people that mattered. Segregation is the child of slavery and slavery ending after many years on a extremely bad note and taste on the palates of the American society.
What I mean is slavery ending after a high of victory over a COMMON and foreign enemy, would have been totally different from slavery ending after a low of a civil war ending where in essence people were forced to let the slaves go AFTER loosing so much at the hands of people that are supposed to be fellow citizens.
One instance progressives wouldn't have the "moral" high ground to claim rights over their laws over people, on the other instance progressives have the "moral" high ground making them able to create these types of laws.
"It caused resentment, anger and hate to grow and fester." Of course it did read above.
"Just remember, folks like the KKK didn’t just go after blacks. THey also went after Jews, who as a rule are white." ??? I am not talking about racists. I have said that before. I am talking about slavery being a foothold for progressives creating laws in order to further segregate people under the guise of doing it to right wrongs done in the past. That is the point of my entire argument.
"It was the idea of the “other” that they fought tooth and nail.\, no matter who it was." ? That has nothing to do with my argument.
Flash was speaking about a middle ground. I contend that it was created, but UNFORTUNATELY due to slavery and later segregation it left footholds for Progressives now to use that long standing oppression over people (and even perhaps the anger that you are describing here) to create these types of laws.
"I am just not sure that the folks in the 1600-1700′s were well educated or thoughtful enough to snap to all the problems it would cause down the line."
I absolutely disagree. If not all most of the framers of the constitution, the forefathers of the country and so on were absoulely BRILLIANT people. Their education was primo and far outweighs any education that any person has had in their lifetimes today. Only didactic people that take the time to learn as much as they can could probably rival them. If all that anyone has is the education from schools and even universities, the forefathers could crush them with knowledge. You cannot essentially start a new country from scratch and not have the intelligence nor the thoughfulness to look down the line. Their ability to look down the line was ESSENTIAL in the framing of the Constitution. I completely disagree with you on this. One good thing about them is that they foresaw because they learnt from the past and knew that they had to essentially create an entirely new system of goverment and so they did.
Overall admittingly they could have never foreseen things like computers, but many DID see that slavery would cause problems down the line, even if they didnt know exactly which problems they would be. Benjamin Franklin and even Jefferson who owned slaves admitted this much in their correspondence.
"Some certainly did. But remebr this is a time when most people were illiterate, and most time was spenmt simply trying to survive."
Oh no!!!! No! No! No! Absolutely not. Literacy rates were over 60% for girls and over 70 or 80 percent for boys. Depending on the state or region. The northern states had higher rates than the southern states. May explain why the northern states were able to move from agragrian into industry faster than the southern states.
Please let's remember that the US starting with the Puritans who were well known for their education system being strict and the purpose even though is mainly for the knowledge of religion issues in order to better serve G-d in WHATEVER industry the person found himself (or herself) in. As time went buy the education of 17th century and 18th century children was amazing. I actually took French classes and history from the 17th and 18th century and the teacher berated us because we had it easy. Back in the day you had to learn poetry and books dissertion by heart IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE. This was normal. I am crushed by this statement of yours.
Crushed. You had to learn latin or greek or both. You had to read the Bible in latin or greek or both. In order to do that you had to learn the language leading to reading classic literature which lead to reading and forming thoughts that lead on the liberties of men and so on. Children didnt have the free time that they had today. By the age of 12 or younger they already became apprentices in different industries for years in order to learn the business.
Oh my goodness please forgive me but I am passionate about this. I have read so many books on this issue and I can only recommend that you read up on education back then. It is astonishing how even though we have so much information, how weak we are in comparison to them as far as education and knowledge is concerned. To be real the education was mainly from home, but the parents having that foundation already were the perfect teachers.
Now mind you not EVERYONE got the best of education be it at home or elsewhere for sure (and mostly due to poverty or due to agragrian culture where farmers valued children in the fields and not in the classroom), however, like I said the framers of the constitution were brilliant men and so were in most cases the forefathers of this country. I will also be real and state the girls were behind considerably and for many years, but you would find a brilliant woman here and there as well.
Please please I beg you if you can find books on education back in the day please do read. The pace can be boring but the information is vastly interesting and vastly enlightning. WE will never have those men again in this country not in that quantity at the same time. Unless we get very lucky.
'Tis a slippery slope indeed.
There were small towns all over, back in the day, where "roommates" would share a home. No one said anything, and they were welcome in public. The only difference was that parents would discretely warn their children not to accept invitations to go inside their home. It was called 'not intruding on their privacy', and no more was said.
exactly my point. i dont want to see men kissing each other or women kissing each other in public. heck i got problems seeing heterosexual doing it too. It is just nasty. Some activities should remain in the home and within the bedroom walls. Don't say nothing, dont ask nothing, just live your life. Homosexual behavior and lifestyle does not come with a command to express their lifestyle to the world as sexual behavior is and was always meant to be private and sharing it with the world (outside of close friends and family) does nothing good for the society in general. It adds nothing to it and it can cause unnecessary hate and problems that could have been 100% avoided.
Gays will never go back into hiding like this, unless they are forced to. Arranging for application of this kind of force, in any jurisdiction, will only create unnecessary social turmoil and suffering
I don't want gays to go back into "hiding." But I do feel that what you do in your bedroom is none of my business, and its none of your business what I do in mine. I think many would feel ok about gays in general if they acted like they had some sense. A couple quietly living together is one thing. Someone out on the streets in bizarre costume-like clothing, and in some cases exposing themselves is going to raise a lot of eyebrows, no matter your sexual orientaton.
Sounds like you have seen those videos of some of those "pride" parades. These events when combined with militant attitudes towards us "breeders" has generated more ill will than can be calculated.
I was actually part of the Gay Pride Parade in San Diego last year, with my giant rocking unicorn. We had a great time, and I saw no problems at all. There were a few protesters with lame signs, and the people in the parade, myself included, waved to them and invited them to join in the fun.
that is impressive and courageous... while i support their rights in all reasonable matters, including the right-to-marry, i don't think i have sufficient cajones to join one of those parades
I was just out having fun with some of my friends, and getting national TV exposure for my rocking horses.
That is nice. The people with the lame signs were not in your face, nor screaming at you, nor storming your parade float. They were just exercising their rights to protest peacefully. Unfortunately there are those that don't, but then again many gay factions are guilty of this as well.
Or going into churches dress as nuns or the pope with crazy makeup, or knocking crosses out of grannies' hands, etc. I say live and let live. I may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle and I do not live it nor endorse it, however that is my issue. I don't go around hurting gays, I don't have the time for that nor the disposition to do it. I do appreciate that they exist and they have the right to live their lives just like I do. I will keep my sexy ways in private all I ask is that others do too.
The Stroud sisters are lesbians? They look more like Chicago Bears linebackers.
The race of the gay man was not indicated, so I assume he was white. But what a mess liberal lawmakers have created; when the law establishes special categories of victims (gays, lesbians, African Americans, Latinos, women) you wind up with absurdities like this logjam of conflicting victimhoods. It's long past time to abolish "hate crime" laws, they're unequally enforced, they presume to know the minds of the perpetrator and they go against the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
The picture with the article showed a black man.
that was woman.
OH.,. My Bad!
understandable
You got to admit, it was an easy mistake to make.
yes it is
I guess it had to come to this in order for the "flaws" to be seen indeed. A white straight grandmother shouldnt have to be less of a victim than a young black person, nor a young white gay male, when they are assaulted and so on. The hate crimes laws are very dangerous for innocent people that just speak their minds and they are stupid as ANYTHING can be a hate crime because hurting someone violently IS INDEED AND INDICATION OF HATE in of itself. Duh! Tagging an additional indictment because of the color or condition of the victim is utterly unnecessary.
Okay, I don't think you fully understand what a hate crime is. To me atleast, it seems you think if you hit me, and i'm gay you will be charged with assault and/or battery and you will get a hate crime. However that is not the case. A hate crime occurs when someone commits a crime against someone because of their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, and so on... So if you hit me and have no idea about my sexual orientation, you could not get charged with a hate crime. But if you hated gay people, and knew i was gay. Then you attacked me because i was gay, you would be charged with a hate crime and assault/battery. I personally feel that if you have the audicity to target one specific group, you should get a greater charge. Intent, motive and state of mind have always been crucial to punishment, hence the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Killing or hurting someone because of race, gender or sexual orientation is worse than mere killing or hurting, and should incur a more severe punishment because it is meant not only to harm the victim but to terrorize an entire community. Also spousal and child abuse could not qualify as a hate crime, very few people I imagine attack their spouse or their children simply because they are their spouse or children.
Absolute foolishness, Damien. You really think that the gay man who is killed because he is gay has been hurt more than the gay man who was killed for his wallet? Nonsense.
Okay I got to admit that I am not going to read the rest of this tripe. I know fully well what a hate crime is fool. A gay person can claim that I hit him because he is gay even though he knows fully well I didn't know. I can still go for a "hate crime" and be punished even more harshly that I would have, if he wasn't gay. That is because I CANNOT PROVE THAT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS GAY, nor can I provide evidence of my thoughts at the time of the assault. Even IF I hit him because he is gay, I shouldn't' be punished for having my beliefs, I should be punished for hitting him... DONE. You are a fool, because you don't understand that simple rule, that a human being is no better nor worse than another human being and therefore if a human being is assaulted, the person that did it shouldn't have to suffer more just because he was prejudiced. A gay person is no better than a straight grandmother. And it is a fact that a straight grandmother who was assaulted and raped in essence, gets LESS justice than a gay white male who was assaulted. It is disgusting. It is YOU that has no idea the dangers of "hate crimes" laws to the point where pastors are being imprisoned because of them.
It is even worse than that. If a person hits you because you are straight there is no extra penalty because that aspect of your existence is not part of a protected class.
To circumvent this I am going to start selling what I like to call manties. They have all the necessary aspects of regular men's underwear but are pink and have frilly waste-bands. In this manner the wearer can claim to be transgender and thereby entitled to all the same rights, protections and due process as are respected with some members of our society.
Exactly. It is not okay to hate a gay person, but it is okay for a gay person to an heterosexual person. That doesn't make any sense. That is why things like affirmative action are dangerous. If a black person does not qualify for the job, he shouldn't get the job. If a black person is qualified and is past over by someone who is less qualified then the person can claim discrimination. A blanket affirmative action is dangerous. Position within companies and school should be due to merit. Affirmative actions and hate crime policies are actually the CONTRARY of everything that Dr. Martin L. King stood for.
Yes, that certainly sounds like a great foundation for a legal system. One in which there are separate orders of due process and some protections -for the more equal classes- are more equal than others. And I'm absolutely enthusiastic about this notion being brought to the most logical conclusion. You know where it is figured that since hate is a crime as well as a thought we establish a battery of oh I don't know what we could call them . . . umm maybe Thought Police so that the state can combat Thought Crime before it has a chance to progress to any further level. Thanks for enlightening me on this.
This fool is in essence saying that gay people are BETTER than non-gays. That black people are better than non-blacks and so on. That is nonsense. No person is better than another and if truly we believe that EVERYONE is the same under the law, these "hate crimes" are completely outside of the law.
He is also stating that we can control other people's opinions and thoughts by using the government as a bully and a punisher. What the heck is that about? Especially since it is impossible to PROVE thoughts at the time of any crime. We can only go by behavior. Killing, assaulting, stealing it is all bad and it is an infliction upon the rights and liberties of others. As long as we can prove that the person did it, why he or she did it is inconsequential. Hate crimes policies are the works for progressives who want to heal and aid those that do willful and heinous crimes even if the crimes are done in their midst. Like the rapes during the NY OWS. It is pathetic.
What if the guy killing a gay man is quiet about his hatred, then takes the gay man's wallet? Then he's just guilty of killing in the course of a robbery? And doesn't do as much jail time? You CAN NOT look into an attacker's heart and testify in court as to his feelings.
Exactly. Progressives are trying to control peoples' minds in essence using govt to take the place of an all knowing deity. Govt cannot know what is inside the mind of any person. Legislating thoughts or beliefs systems is a bad thing. It can be abused.
It IS being abused, and our government sanctions it.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/planning-for-islamic-caliphate-to-begin/
Is the science settled yet? Progressives are functional idiots.
Agreed!
damien1991:"Killing or hurting someone because of race, gender or sexual orientation is worse than mere killing or hurting, and should incur a more severe punishment"
NONSENSE! If someone kills or hurts you or a loved one, you or they are killed or hurt regardless of the motive. When law enforcement officials bring news to a parent of a child's violent death, do the parents scream out immediately:"What was the motive?!" "What was the motive?!" Do such parents feel better and grieve less when they find out their child died in drug violence or through a random act of violence, and wasn't targeted for a specific reason? NO! So if a person isn't targeted for a specific reason, it's only "mere killing"?
I agree Kimmy. You assault someone, ANYONE, it is a crime. period. And should be prosecuted as a crime. Trying to say the crime was worse because of the person's color, or lack thereof, or sexual orientation, etc. is absurd. I don't hear anyone calling spousal abuse a hate crime, though in that context it certainly is. Or child abuse (whilecursing the child, emotionally abusing them and neglecting them) is a hate crime. Crime in general, at lleast at the moment, is based in hate. You don't kill or rob or attack or lie about someone you love.
Exactly. Crime is crime and it doesn't stem out of love and respect for the person's life or property. Hate crimes indictment are in reality thought or belief crimes indictments. You shouldn't punish someone for what they think or belief, but they SHOULD be punished by what they do, when what they do is against the laws where the liberties and lives of others were infringed upon.
Or if you're an atheist, dressed as Mohamed, marching in a parade, and some guy comes out of the crowd yelling Islamic threats, thinking it his right to assault you. That's a hate crime. I still think he should only do the same time as anyone else convicted of assault. Hate crime laws are stupid.
Mmm...this one is complicated. The lesbians accuse the gay man of using a racial slur against them, although it's well known that it is impossible for gays to be racist(the slur might have come from a conservative ventriloquist lurking about somewhere seeking to cause trouble), but he says they used homophobic slurs against him, another seeming impossibility. I think what we need here to straighten this out is a Muslim judge who will sentence them all to beheading.
"(the slur might have come from a conservative ventriloquist lurking about somewhere seeking to cause trouble)..."
Damn, you weren't supposed to mention the League of Trouble-Causing Conservative Ventriloquists publicly! Now we'll lose our grant from the Koch Brothers!
Oh my that is funny but if this was Iran or something it would definetly happen.
Gays mock us "breeders" regularly.. not all of them, mind you. Bigotry exists in any group to varying degrees. Its often just a matter of who has power, and how much restraint they employ
And that's not a hate crime?
Well, there seems to be a plethora of godless atheist pond scum running things and they all seem clear on one thing...bigotry exists only with the people who don't agree with them. What they do among themselves is their own business...just ask them, when they're not trying to bash your head in, with all that restraint they employ...the rest of the time!
This is a problem on all aspects of social engineering. Overall in order to bring up the oppressed or the supposedly oppressed people* of a country, they come up with laws and regulations that look good on paper (like affirmative action), but that can be easily abused and after a while their usage actually leads to the discrimation of OTHER people groups based on THEIR race and/or conditions. So one group gets up there in power and therefore they become the oppressor. It is a tricky game that hurts a lot of people.
* In all reality gay people cannot claim that as a whole they were unduly oppressed in this country throughout this country's history. Even with anti-sodomy laws and things like that, if a gay person kept his or her mouth shut and was careful about how they lived their lifestyle they would be just fine in society ESPECIALLY if they were white and male. Gay white males had it easy breezy as long as they kept their private lives private. To the point where the US have had a gay President without people being all up in his personal business and gay white males have had great positions in industries (like the entertaiment business) and so on and so forth. A person who was gay was more than likely going to be discriminated for being a female or black or whatever over being gay if they just keep that private. Being gay cannot be equated to being black or female or something that is VISIBLE. Because the visible you cannot change nor can it be hidden. You can just live your live privately if you are gay and not talk about it as it is no one's business what you do with your whomever in your home. So again gays really cannot complain of rampart hate. It is those that chose to make it a cause celebre and to go out there and make it a big deal that may have found problems. If a person keeps his private life private they don't have problems, it is the need to find acceptance by EVERYONE either through social engineering or conversion of hearts (and many time forced) that has lead to whatever oppresion the homosexual agenda believed existed that lead them to be militant about it.
I guess I made a gay mad... whatevs...
Or they could let the Red Queen decide.
Same result.