its legal to hate?

[diseminator]

WOW.. your politicians suck.


http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/120607hate.htm

[Bluebiyou]

LOL
No more than any other politicians, Disseminator.
Wow, corruption and bad decisions in politics? That's a new one.

Yeah, I agree with you that this one in particular, sucks, but it's nothing new.

[12voltman59]

With the current make up of the Congress and with a president, that at least panders to the "social conservative" side, and the generally polarized political climate we have in the good ol' US of A these days---the death of this legislation is no surprise.

We have to wait and see how the 2008 elections play out---

If we get Hillary, Obama or any of the Dems as president and the Dems pick up more seats in both the House and Senate--they do have a very good shot at dominating the Senate with some major long time Republican members retiring and also a chance to pick up more seats in the House---then "liberal" legislation such as this has a much better chance of making it and among a host of things--this legislation will make its way back on the agenda and pass in 2009.

I hope this is the way it turns out----but then it could go the other way and we wind up those in control who want to make America "a truly Godly nation!"

I say to that---may God forbid!!! LOL

[shameless agitator]

Yeah, we've been working on that bill for quite a while now. As 12volt said, we're not going to have a chance with anything like this until we throw some of those bums out. As Mark Twain pointed out, Politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently, and often for the same reason.

[TaylorMade]

Call me the dissident, but I'm not sure how I feel about hate crimes. I would be just as dead if someone beat me up because I am not the best at fighting back or if someone called me the n-word while doing it. It seems to create a hierarchy of victim hood. . .kinda like Animal Farm- - "some animals are more equal than others."

I can understand the intent of a hate crime statute - - to protect a community from crimes against it. But we already have a justice system that is supposed to protect everyone (in theory at least). Do I want the justice system to care because one person was murdered, or do I want the justice system to care that "a bisexual" was murdered?

I want it to be the former.

*Taylor*

[the mage]

It's a hate crime when he is murdered SOLELY for BEING BISEXUAL.

[TaylorMade]

It's a hate crime when he is murdered SOLELY for BEING BISEXUAL.

How do you KNOW it's the motive if it's not readily certain... that's like a thought crime.

A person should be punished for what they do, not why they did something.

*Taylor*

[slocum5]

Agree generally with Taylormade, with the caveat that when an individual or a group plots and executes that plot against another person based on that person's sexuality or race, a hate crime has occurred. But then again, does that make the act more odius than Booth shooting Lincoln out of political hatred?

[The Barefoot Contess]

There is a reason why hate crime legislation is necessary, and it is the same why affirmative action is necessary: it not out of pity, or to create yet another form of discrimination, but to counteract the effects of a system that is neither fair nor egalitarian. In a perfect system, where everyone has the same opportunities, hate crime legislation and affirmative action are not necessary. It is a system that discriminates against certain minorities, not de iure, but de facto, that needs that legislation.

[12voltman59]

The following is a copy of an email I received from the Human Rights Campaign on this issue:

Dear Michael,

As I write this, I am filled with both deep disappointment and gratitude. I am disappointed because our fight for a hate crimes bill has been derailed, but grateful for the historic advances that we were able to achieve this year.



As you all know, we have made momentous advancements this year by moving the federal hate crimes legislation the closest it has ever been to becoming law. For the first time ever, in one year we were able to pass the fully-inclusive legislation through both chambers of Congress – a truly historic feat.



If you recall, the Matthew Shepard Act first passed the House of Representatives back in May as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It then moved to the Senate, where it passed 60 to 39 in September as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) attached the Matthew Shepard Act to the Department of Defense Authorization bill because President Bush had announced that he would veto a free-standing hate crimes bill. By amending hate crimes to this larger bill, Senators Kennedy and Smith thought that we had a better chance of getting the president’s signature. After all, Bush would have to veto the entire piece of legislation – hate crimes AND programs for his war in Iraq – to reject hate crimes protections.



But in a frustrating move yesterday, during the very last legislative step – a conference committee working out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill – we received word that the Matthew Shepard Act would be dropped from the final version of the bill. The hate crimes veto threat issued by the White House and organized opposition by House Republican Leadership cost significant numbers of votes on the right. Iraq-related provisions, which many progressive Democrats opposed, cost votes on the left. Moderate Democrats, many of whom voted for the hate crimes bill in May, did not want to test the President’s veto threat and risk a delay in increased pay for military personnel. All of these factors resulted in insufficient votes to secure passage of the bill with the hate crimes provision.

HRC coordinated a major final push to protect this bill. 40,000 HRC activists responded to our call and wrote to Congress. We helped organize a coalition effort with 120 national and local organizations. We held 11th-hour meetings with lawmakers.



Despite the anger we all feel that we fell short so close to the finish line, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we did succeed in moving hate crimes legislation the closest it has ever been to hitting the President’s desk for signature. And rest assured, the Human Rights Campaign is not done fighting. We are not giving up on efforts to find another legislative vehicle, in the second half of this Congress, to move the Matthew Shepard Act. Yes, we made historic advancements, but we will not be satisfied until we get a President who will use his or her pen to enshrine into our federal law books that violence against the GLBT community will not be tolerated in this country.



We have been a leader in the fight for hate crimes legislation for over a decade, and we're not about to let this setback deter us. We will not rest until these protections are law.



We also can't lose track of the bigger picture for 2008. On top of working to advance this bill and the rest of our equality agenda, we are already mobilizing around the 2008 elections. We are investing major resources to:



Elect local pro-equality officials who will be tomorrow's national leaders,
Expand our majority in Congress – so that we will have the votes we need to thwart roadblocks like this – and
Elect a leader in the White House who would NEVER veto a bill protecting Americans from hate crimes.
These are the moments when your support counts most. Together, we'll find the right path to victory. We know it is there.


Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President

[TaylorMade]

There is a reason why hate crime legislation is necessary, and it is the same why affirmative action is necessary: it not out of pity, or to create yet another form of discrimination, but to counteract the effects of a system that is neither fair nor egalitarian. In a perfect system, where everyone has the same opportunities, hate crime legislation and affirmative action are not necessary. It is a system that discriminates against certain minorities, not de iure, but de facto, that needs that legislation.

Affirmative action is a flawed solution in my eyes that needs to either be removed or overhauled - -it is hurting another group in an attempt to help others (Did you know that women are finally outnumbering men in colleges? And while that sounds great and all, it has a seamy underbelly of consequences. Do you care where those men are going?) and sacrificing merit on the altar of diversity.

I can see hate crime legislation doing the same thing. I don't want to go down that road again. The people who have killed Matthew Sheppard are serving their time. The system has not failed him. The people who have killed James Byrd are also serving time and facing death, the system has not failed him either. If we catch those that kill them, and the evidence proving it is present - - the system should work.

We're not in the era of the Scottsdale Boys anymore.

*Taylor*

[ziggybabie]

Hate crime laws are pointless, anyway. They are selective. I know this one tugs the heat strings because he was gay and this is a bisexual forum.


Truth be told, though hate crime laws were made to protect minority groups, the majority in some cases are victimized more often. The highest violence in the country is black-on-black violence, but as far as the longstanding black-white thing, more of the victims of criminal violence are the ones who are the opposite of the ones who are likely to be reported upon. But you RARELY hear an anti-white "hate crime". I had family robbed by racial slur using thugs, and it's almost as if white people are afraid to even think of using that card, themselves.

Look, I understand unwarranted racial profiling by police of innocents, how the ghetto formed from the seeds of housing and job discrimination, how much of the negative imagery that black youth emulates is pushed by rich white entertainment executives, and some of the top profitters from the drugs and arms that corrupt many ghettoes are rich white men. I recognize the history of arrogant gung-ho blind nationalism in our country and racism and the misdeeds of certain white people.

BUT, I think the average white citizen, by and far has come a LONG LONG ways, in terms of race. I don't think job discrimination is even a quarter as frequent as what some liberals make it out to be, today. Even the most racist people I know, I don't think aren't likely to let that influence their hiring decisions. Affirmative action isn't as necessary as it once was. I've seen some of MY family members face bullshit working in mostly black places of employment, also, so that does go both ways. Even if we wanted to humor the idea that "white privilege" is what is holding many down, an alternative to affirmative action that did not see race period would be much better for everyone and would not cause so much turmoil for both sides.

Anyway, back to the hate crime thing. How inclusive should we be? That could get ridiculous after a while. I just support the maximum possible punishment for things like homicide and assaults where a certain amount of damage is done, regardless of motive.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Affirmative action is a flawed solution in my eyes that needs to either be removed or overhauled - -it is hurting another group in an attempt to help others (Did you know that women are finally outnumbering men in colleges? And while that sounds great and all, it has a seamy underbelly of consequences. Do you care where those men are going?) and sacrificing merit on the altar of diversity.

I can see hate crime legislation doing the same thing. I don't want to go down that road again. The people who have killed Matthew Sheppard are serving their time. The system has not failed him. The people who have killed James Byrd are also serving time and facing death, the system has not failed him either. If we catch those that kill them, and the evidence proving it is present - - the system should work.

We're not in the era of the Scottsdale Boys anymore.

*Taylor*

Yes, we are. You give me two examples of the system working. How wonderful, our problems are over. Women outnumber men in college? Yes. Do their salaries compare to those of men? Hell, no. Do they occupy as many executive positions as men? Hell, no. Do you really think there is no racial discrimination anymore? Do you really think that everyone has access to a decent lawyer to sue a company for discrimination? I repeat: the rules of the game, in practice, and sometimes in theory, are not the same for everyone, and until they are the same, we need affirmative action. Come on, "don't ask don't tell"? How is the system working there??? That is legal discrimination at work, right there. Affirmative action and hate crime legislation exist to neutralize unearned advantages by whites / men / heterosexuals. Whether we admit it or not, those advantages are still alive.
I have an Equal Rights Campaign key chain. Do you know what my adviser told me? "Don't bring it to your job interviews. They will not hire you". And, guess what, since there is no hate crime legislation, I would have nothing to support a lawsuit. Wow, the system does work.

[TaylorMade]

Yes, we are. You give me two examples of the system working. How wonderful, our problems are over. Women outnumber men in college? Yes. Do their salaries compare to those of men? Hell, no. Do they occupy as many executive positions as men? Hell, no. Do you really think there is no racial discrimination anymore? Do you really think that everyone has access to a decent lawyer to sue a company for discrimination? I repeat: the rules of the game, in practice, and sometimes in theory, are not the same for everyone, and until they are the same, we need affirmative action. Come on, "don't ask don't tell"? How is the system working there??? That is legal discrimination at work, right there. Affirmative action and hate crime legislation exist to neutralize unearned advantages by whites / men / heterosexuals. Whether we admit it or not, those advantages are still alive.
I have an Equal Rights Campaign key chain. Do you know what my adviser told me? "Don't bring it to your job interviews. They will not hire you". And, guess what, since there is no hate crime legislation, I would have nothing to support a lawsuit. Wow, the system does work.

I have heard the equal pay argument, but it doesn't make sense when examined. Women do not work in many of the same fields men do - and women have the ability to opt out of the work force if they desire to. Men are expected to work from 18 to the grave; women tend to take pauses, for kids for life and for various other things. The world does not stop for them. . .do you think it really should?

I think there is still discrimination, but it's not against the usual suspects anymore.

The military is not "the system". Ever heard of the UCMJ? The military has their own laws and legal system. To expect them to conform to civilian standards shows you really don't know much about the military. (This isn't speaking to the fairness of DADT, but to the situation in which it exists)

And about the keychain thing... what are you doing, jangling your keys in their face? I wouldn't hire ya either if that's what you're doing.:tong:

*Taylor*

[slocum5]

You are right Countess. Many a white male has worked his buns off for six years trying to earn that promotion and provide a better life for his wife and children, only to see that promotion go to a black man or a woman (black or white) who joined the firm three years ago and whom he tutored to bring up to tolerable performance. Obviously a case of de facto discrimination. In many cases it is mandated, thus becoming de jure (as in minority hiring requirements in government contracting).

Granted, the above pales when compared to the vast number of blacks and women who were more capable than the white guys who were promoted.

But the sword does cut both ways when reduced to the individual experience and it's bitter either way.

Before you flame me, I had a sales staff of 13, including 2 white women, 1 black woman and 2 black guys. They were paid on commission, thus favoritism was a non issue. One of the black guys led the pack in sales for 19 of the 24 years he worked for me until he retired at age 66. He and his dear wife Janet will visit with me for ten days starting Dec. 28th. Chester and I will play golf, watch bowl games, drink liquor and smoke cigarettes. Janet will tut-tut us as she sips her wine and gets as high as we do.

[The Barefoot Contess]

I have heard the equal pay argument, but it doesn't make sense when examined. Women do not work in many of the same fields men do - and women have the ability to opt out of the work force if they desire to. Men are expected to work from 18 to the grave; women tend to take pauses, for kids for life and for various other things. The world does not stop for them. . .do you think it really should?

I think there is still discrimination, but it's not against the usual suspects anymore.

The military is not "the system". Ever heard of the UCMJ? The military has their own laws and legal system. To expect them to conform to civilian standards shows you really don't know much about the military. (This isn't speaking to the fairness of DADT, but to the situation in which it exists)

And about the keychain thing... what are you doing, jangling your keys in their face? I wouldn't hire ya either if that's what you're doing.:tong:

*Taylor*

Maybe we should wonder why women don't work in the same fields as men do. "Pauses for kids, for life and for various other things"? So, if women want the same treatment, they should not have children, right?
(I get the joke, but...) Maybe I should hide also that I am a woman in my job interviews. You know, become as neutral and conventional as possible so that nothing, nothing I wear, say, or do will say anything about me; so that in the end, if I am lucky, I will be so much like them, and I will feel so proud of my evolution that I will have forgotten who I was to begin with. Sounds like a plan to me.

[TaylorMade]

Maybe we should wonder why women don't work in the same fields as men do. "Pauses for kids, for life and for various other things"? So, if women want the same treatment, they should not have children, right?
(I get the joke, but...) Maybe I should hide also that I am a woman in my job interviews. You know, become as neutral and conventional as possible so that nothing, nothing I wear, say, or do will say anything about me; so that in the end, if I am lucky, I will be so much like them, and I will feel so proud of my evolution that I will have forgotten who I was to begin with. Sounds like a plan to me.

It's a choice... sometimes there are consequences to those choices. Life isn't fair.
OH GAWD, BG. . .you work for a corporation, you play by their rules. You don't like it, start your own business. Working isn't about individuality, or self-expression... it's about making a fucking living.

:rolleyes: you want self expression, be an artist.

*Taylor*

[The Barefoot Contess]

It's a choice... sometimes there are consequences to those choices. Life isn't fair.
OH GAWD, BG. . .you work for a corporation, you play by their rules. You don't like it, start your own business. Working isn't about individuality, or self-expression... it's about making a fucking living.

:rolleyes: you want self expression, be an artist.

*Taylor*

Oh, I love that argument, especially when you claimed earlier that society is egalitarian.
So, then in order to make "a fucking living" anything goes? I own a business, I set up all the rules. Uumm. Should I be able to not hire black people if I don't want to? After all, if I can hide my chain, they can use make up, right? Is that what you are saying?

[The Barefoot Contess]

a corporation
*Taylor*

Oh, by the way, it is a public school.

[TaylorMade]

Oh, I love that argument, especially when you claimed earlier that society is egalitarian.
So, then in order to make "a fucking living" anything goes? I own a business, I set up all the rules. Uumm. Should I be able to not hire black people if I don't want to? After all, if I can hide my chain, they can use make up, right? Is that what you are saying?

A key chain ain't skin color, Barefoot and you are a serious dumbass for making that comparison. Race card play denied. And when did I say society was egalitarian? You can go ahead and not hire black people if you want, though. Cheaper to hire Mexicans, tho. :p

So it's a school...so you're not even there for yourself, you're there for the parents of that school, some of whom many not agree with you. You're there to TEACH Spanish or whatever your degree says you are qualified to teach. . . your classroom is not your soapbox.

Shoe on the other foot: would you feel comfortable with an overly outspoken Christian on staff who feels that she needs to express her Christianity at every turn?

*Taylor*

[slocum5]

Countess is a teacher in a public school!!!!! Enough said!!! Sad to imagine how many young minds will be warped.

[pasco_lol_cpl]

Call me the dissident, but I'm not sure how I feel about hate crimes. I would be just as dead if someone beat me up because I am not the best at fighting back or if someone called me the n-word while doing it. It seems to create a hierarchy of victim hood. . .kinda like Animal Farm- - "some animals are more equal than others."

I can understand the intent of a hate crime statute - - to protect a community from crimes against it. But we already have a justice system that is supposed to protect everyone (in theory at least). Do I want the justice system to care because one person was murdered, or do I want the justice system to care that "a bisexual" was murdered?

I want it to be the former.

*Taylor*

and I'll probably get drummed for this but I agree. To take it a step further, I have a problem with forcing people to think one way or another when it comes to other individuals. I'd rather let the assholes be assholes while society around them changes (albeit slowly) so that everyone is cherished for the contents of their hearts. The assholes will eventually go the way of the do-do. Progress is marching on.

[wolfcamp]

It's a hate crime when he is murdered SOLELY for BEING BISEXUAL.

Funny thing about this- the story going around campus here in Laramie is that Mathew Shepard was killed for a drug-deal-gone-bad, and it had little or nothing to do with his sexuality. I heard this from some students a few months ago, and just last week the school newspaper, The Branding Iron, ran a full page story. I can't remember the exact adjective the newspaper story used but it called him something like a 'seedy' little drug dealer. It wasn't very flattering to Shepard. The story said that Laramie took a bad rap, because it made the town out to be a redneck, homophobic place. I didn't live here back then, but I remember reading about it, and I remember thinking that it really made Laramie look bad.

After Shepard was killed, the press jumped on the story and played up the gay angle. Nobody really questioned that until recently. That is what the story said. That may be one reason why the legislation was dropped. Maybe nobody wanted to be on the bandwagon if the wheels were coming off because of this new information.

I'm not advocating for this one way or the other. I just thought I'd post this information because I thought it was an interesting development.

WC

[mannysg]

I have seen people hired because they are NOT white when they weren't as qualified as the white people who applied, so yes there is discrimination happening against ALL races, including white men and women. Some call this situation "Affirmative action", I call it discrimination.

I've seen white women promoted ahead of men, both white men and black men, just because they are female when all the men were better qualified. Is this "Affirmative action" or "Discrimination"? I call it discrimination.

I'm all for equal rights, but for it to truely be "equal", everyone has to have the same deck of cards. "Race cards", "Gender cards", and other cards that only a select few have should not be allowed in the game.

How is it "EQUAL" if you are allowed to use the "I'm a women card" or a "Race card"? Shit, I'll wear a fucking skirt to work and call myself "Irish-American"
(even though my ansestors came here on a boat over 150 years ago) if that's what it takes for me to be able to use those cards to get a better job.

If you are better and more qualified then me for a particular job or position, then DAMMIT you should get the job for THAT reason, NOT because you are a certain race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. But if I am better and more qualified then you, then I should get the job, no matter WHAT race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. you are.

Yes, at one time affirmative action was needed. When discrimination was running rampant affirmative action was needed to change people's way of thinking. We are past that now. True, some people will always be racist but even the racists know that if they discriminate they can and will be punished.

That said, it is past time to make discrimination against sexuality illegal.

As for the "HATE CRIME" laws, I side with Taylor. The punishment should be the same no matter why the crime was commited, and no matter WHO commited the crime.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Countess is a teacher in a public school!!!!! Enough said!!! Sad to imagine how many young minds will be warped.

I think this is the end of my participation in this thread. Thanks for the insults and preconceptions.

[the mage]

The very demographic that is all aghast at the "hate mongering gay moderator"
not to mention myself being called a spreader of hate, for posting female positive information clearly does not see the impact of hate crimes.
You have intermixed discrimination and HATRED in this string.
They are entirely different.

Hate crime legislation was born in a time where white men did not refuse jobs to black men, they shot them for sport.
Hate crime legislation was born with the discovery of Hitler's oven's.

Its not about jobs, its about being acknowledged as worthy of being called human.

[the mage]

this type of thing goes on and on too..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_aids

[FalconAngel]

There are a few very important things, here.

On the issue of race, which has been brought up in this thread....The biggest contributor to racial tension has been three things;

1. Race based hiring quotas in the 60's and 70's. This forced companies to hire with regard to race rather than competence in the proper career field, which has caused other problems that we are seeing even now.

2. Political correctness, which has created more tension because now we can't say anything because it just might offend someone. So much for free speech.

3. Race relations "advocates", who have made, and continue to make, their fame and fortune by keeping racial issues alive and well.

On the issue of the next election, there are a few things that we all need to be aware of;

1. Our current regime has shown that it does not care for the people as much as the war that they and their corporate friends make money from.

2. The Democrat's front runner, Clinton, has already shown her true colors as regards her constituents, by letting children of divorce continue to suffer from parental alienation syndrome (PAS), by denying aid to those divorced parents who seek to see children that they are denied court-ordered visitation with parents that are doing everything possible to comply with court orders for child support.
She doesn't care about our kids; what makes you think that she cares about adults?

3. Politicians care only for votes. Without the votes, no bill gets passed. This also means that our politicians will not pass any bill if they think that the votes will not be there, for them, on the next election, should they vote for said bill.
Emperor Bush follows the direction of the religious right (the "God is on our side of the war" folks). They believe that anything that is not heterosexuality is not a valid gender orientation. He is certainly NOT going to pass a bill that his main support is opposed to.

And finally;
Hate and discrimination are not far removed from each other. They breed each other and support each other. You cannot have hate without discrimination and you cannot have discrimination without some degree of hate.

[wolfcamp]

2. The Democrat's front runner, Clinton, has already shown her true colors as regards her constituents, by letting children of divorce continue to suffer from parental alienation syndrome (PAS), by denying aid to those divorced parents who seek to see children that they are denied court-ordered visitation with parents that are doing everything possible to comply with court orders for child support.
She doesn't care about our kids; what makes you think that she cares about adults?


This should probably go into a new thread.

I sympathize with this cause, because I was caught up in it for over 10 years back in the 80's and 90's. I have horror stories, but I won't tell them here. However, it's a cause that is beyond the comprehension of anyone who has not been through it, and it's a fight that isn't going to be won. People just don't understand what you are talking about. NOBODY CARES about a non-custodial parent's good intentions. (read divorced father) That's a little hard for me to say, because at one time I really wanted somebody (ANYBODY) to care. It isn't just Clinton. What viable candidate would take up this cause? No one.

[Aravanww]

Murder is murder... that I how I feel... I am tired of the politicians making out like one person is more guilty for killing than another cause he did it out of hatred for a particular race/creed/sex/orientation/etc. .
A person who throws a stone through a storefront window is not more guilty than another just because he did it for the reason that the owners were a different nationality or skin color.
Crime is crime and skinning it like an onion over the whys is nothing but semantics. We are supposed to be a civilized people and yet we worry over the smallest of issues that stem not from what one person did to another, but the why.
If a person commits a crime against another then there should be a punishment which fits that and that persons "rights" should be removed tantamount with the rights he/she trampled on of their victim.
Our government gets so tied up in language of laws that they forget to simply give the ok to enforce the laws that we have.
Little timmy does not need his own law governing the way he rides his bike because he is different from little billy by color of skin etc. (lets not go through the list again.. )
Unfortunately one person is rational and can see that these things are clear, a group of people discussing them become irrational over the fear that they and "their" people might be slighted because the language of the law is different from how they might want it.
Sorry to go off on a rant, just tired of our government pissing down our backs and telling us its just raining.

[12voltman59]

I found the following on a web site that lays out the cases made for and against this proposed legislation:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat2.htm

I think that the real reason that the religious right is opposed to legislation such as this is because they do feel, for whatever reason, that GLBT people and the like are people living "against the Bible" and all of that rot--and they think that such legislation would grant "special status" to those in this and related categories---

Go check out this page--it does a good job of dealing with this issue from both sides--but yes--it does tend to favor the pro-legislation side!!!

[TaylorMade]

I think this is the end of my participation in this thread. Thanks for the insults and preconceptions.

You never answered my shoe on the other foot question. . .don't hide behind slocum either. He has nothing to do with me.:tongue:

*Taylor*