Matthew Shepard Act is getting closer!

[nozobo]

Oh cool, one of co-worker said Sam's Club is good workplace, plus seems better than wal-mart, both of them are same company, you know that but different background and retail type.

You work at Sam's Club as well or? I'm bit confusing... But yeah I already like my job alot better at Sam's Club than Wal-Mart... it's funny I got a raise even though I'm in the same position from Walmart to Sam's Club.. I did ask why, they say Sam's Club is in better reputation than Walmart but exactly why I dunno. :fu: walmart :fu:

 

[Foxrac]

You work at Sam's Club as well or? I'm bit confusing... But yeah I already like my job alot better at Sam's Club than Wal-Mart... it's funny I got a raise even though I'm in the same position from Walmart to Sam's Club.. I did ask why, they say Sam's Club is in better reputation than Walmart but exactly why I dunno. :fu: walmart :fu:

I don't work at Sam's Club, I just got info from co-worker and still work at wal-mart.

 

[Foxrac]

While I research around the Human Rights Campaign, it appears that they are planning even more.

So yes, it include the discrimination in workplaces. Also the education part really excited me because that could reduce the hate crime for the students before they graduated, just like they educated about the race. There are very few people that are victim of racist because of the school education, that can happen to the GLBT too.

And some of their lastest news.

Well, there's still race relation issue in some part like between blacks and latino (mostly mexicans) and between blacks and korean (it went worse after 1992 LA riot).

 

[InTheGenes]

That's true that there are laws protecting the vulnerable members of our society. Like you stated, the reason is usually because they are unable either to physically defend themselves, or they are unable to make decisions for themselves. I don't think the sexual orientation category (as a whole) fits into those situations.

Yes, and no. Yes, gays and lesbians are able to make decisions for themselves (even when many of those decisions - gay marriage, adoption, etc. - are stymied, but that's a whole different topic) and can physically defend themselves (although 1-2 defenseless gay guys getting beat on by groups of teenagers with baseball bats isn't quite what I'd call a fair fight)... but isn't this also about members of our society being systematically TARGETED and VICTIMIZED on a regular basis? If hate crime legislation is basically one of the few ways lawmakers can say, "Hey, we recognize that these groups of people are being regularly targeted and abused, and this is the measure we're going to take to serve as an extra deterrent for it, to say enough is enough"... is that a bad thing?

Except for the rabbit example, all your other examples didn't just express the feeling of hate, they also threatened violent action. It's the threat of violence that should be prosecuted, not the name calling per se.

If someone just spray painted "Get out of town!" or "You must die" or "It's time for payback!" on your garage door, those phrases don't specify hate against any group but they are still threatening. It's the threat that needs to be prosecuted, not the "thoughts" or "emotions" behind them.

I understand what you're saying, I do. But... there is ALSO an implied threat of violence associated with hate speech. Try walking down a hall, or an alley, etc. and have someone sneer, "Fucking faggot!" in your direction, and tell me that you don't instantly feel menaced/threatened. Why? Because typically, those lovely words are the prelude to violence. By your own definition, "it's the threat of violence that needs to be prosecuted". Perhaps the difference between our opinions is that you don't see a threat where gays do. Hyper-sensitivity? Perhaps in some instances... but on the whole, I don't believe so.

 

[Hwy99]

Well, there's still race relation issue in some part like between blacks and latino (mostly mexicans) and between blacks and korean (it went worse after 1992 LA riot).

Yeah it can be very racist depends on the location. In Washington, I haven't see much of racist crime.

 

[Reba]

Yes, and no. Yes, gays and lesbians are able to make decisions for themselves (even when many of those decisions - gay marriage, adoption, etc. - are stymied, but that's a whole different topic)

I meant the individuals of currently protected groups are mentally or emotionally incapable of making decisions, and usually have family members or guardians who are responsible for their daily care. That's why children, people with mental retardation, senility, Alzheimer's, etc., are in a protected class.

...and can physically defend themselves (although 1-2 defenseless gay guys getting beat on by groups of teenagers with baseball bats isn't quite what I'd call a fair fight)...

I meant people who can never defend themselves under any circumstances, not people who are circumstantially overpowered. That means children, frail elderly people, people who are paralyzed or in comas, etc.

but isn't this also about members of our society being systematically TARGETED and VICTIMIZED on a regular basis?

Will hate crime legislation truly correct systematic targeting and victimizing?

Just asking.

I understand what you're saying, I do. But... there is ALSO an implied threat of violence associated with hate speech. Try walking down a hall, or an alley, etc. and have someone sneer, "Fucking faggot!" in your direction, and tell me that you don't instantly feel menaced/threatened. Why? Because typically, those lovely words are the prelude to violence.

Those words are horrible. I definitely don't condone that kind of language or attitude. But those ugly words don't always preclude violence; it's not a prima facie situation. You can't arrest someone for their nasty, insulting words (remember the First Amendment?) Much as we might not like it, the First Amendment works both ways.

By your own definition, "it's the threat of violence that needs to be prosecuted". Perhaps the difference between our opinions is that you don't see a threat where gays do. Hyper-sensitivity? Perhaps in some instances... but on the whole, I don't believe so.

Sometimes the "threat" aspect is in the eyes of the beholder. That's always been a problem in assault and stalking cases. There are some words that are clearly threats ("I will kill, murder, beat you to a pulp, slice you up, feed you to the fishes," etc.). But the law also doesn't accept that every verbal or written insult is a threat of physical violence. That usually has to get sorted out in court.

 

[InTheGenes]

Will hate crime legislation truly correct systematic targeting and victimizing?

Just asking.

Who can say? We won't know until/unless the legislation is enacted. Just as with any laws (and their enforcement), I'm sure there will be SOME folks who continue to commit crimes/atrocities, regardless of the laws of the land. Based on your earlier post, it's clear that you don't think that it will IMPROVE the situation. I'm not so sure. Oftentimes, things have to get worse, before they can get better.

Those words are horrible. I definitely don't condone that kind of language or attitude. But those ugly words don't always preclude violence; it's not a prima facie situation. You can't arrest someone for their nasty, insulting words (remember the First Amendment?) Much as we might not like it, the First Amendment works both ways.

Trust me, I'm an advocate for 1st Amendment rights. However, (and I don't claim to be an expert on the proposed legislation, so I'm mostly pre-supposing at this point) perhaps if/when it becames clear as part of an investigation that the perpetrator used hate speech when committing their crime, the offense passes from simple "whatever" into "hate crime", subject to whatever penalties are associated, etc.

::shrug:: I dunno.

Sometimes the "threat" aspect is in the eyes of the beholder. That's always been a problem in assault and stalking cases. There are some words that are clearly threats ("I will kill, murder, beat you to a pulp, slice you up, feed you to the fishes," etc.). But the law also doesn't accept that every verbal or written insult is a threat of physical violence. That usually has to get sorted out in court.

And I think that's at the crux of this particular argument. The legislators are currently in the process of defining what the parameters of what "hate crimes" would actually consist of, and their punishment.

 

[Wokamuka]

On the flip side . . .

Any type of legislation that encourages people to be punished for the thoughts in their head . . . destroys the clear line between action vs thoughts.

If you do the crime (and get caught), ya gotta do the time.

If a man kills me, I'd probably be a bit pissed . . . probably would like to have an "eye for an eye" justice. I'm not emperor, though, and cannot call the shots (especially if I'm dead).

The criminal justice system within the United States has created different degrees of killing with different degrees of punishment. The United States' criminal justice system (proudly imprisoning 25% of the world's prison population) has to make room for offenders, violent offenders, and repeat offenders.

No matter what bill - it only puts a bandage on the problem (sort of like Bush's approach except only when he (or his comrades) benefit). Let's go to the source of the problem and fix it there. (Bush wouldn't like that either since, surprise-surprise, the prison industry is BIG in Texas. No prisoners - no jobs.)

There is no clear solution. However, it is CLEAR that the day the government puts people in prison for their thoughts (not actions) is the day the United States and all its ideals will fail.

The government can keep its nose out of my bedroom and my brain. Its role is to make sure no harm is done to any of its citizens. When harm is done, its role is to deliver the appropriate punishment.

Remember, hate crimes happen by those dead inside toward those living life to its fullest.

 

[Foxrac]

Yeah it can be very racist depends on the location. In Washington, I haven't see much of racist crime.

Yup, that right.

 

[ASLGAL]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacman View Post
If Bush does veto it then he have no heart for Matthew Shepard too.
He has no heart for anyone. Over 700,000 people died because of him. Will it make any difference if anyone kidnaps his daughters and threaten him that they would hurt their daughters. I wonder if he would protect his daughters or not? If he does care, I would be in shock for sure.

MetroGuy,
If you have proof that our President has killed or in any way is responsible for the deaths of 700,000 people please present it.

How would kidnapping the President's children enter this discussion?
I thought this is supposed to about - Do we need another law regarding hate crimes?

Here's the deal. If this law passes, one year after it goes into effect, let's check back here and see if things really have changed as a result of its passing.

In the meantime, I will continue to support equal enforcement of our current laws against assault and murder for all people.

Great idea Reba.

I'll tell you what DOES bother me about it (and is part of the reason that I'm conflicted about it): it basically amounts to legislating thought, which is abhorrant to most democratic ideals. These laws, if enacted, are not going to keep people from being homophobic, they're not going to keep people from being bigots, racists, anti-semites, etc. It just might, however, serve as a deterrent against acting on those homophobic/racist/bigoted/anti-semitic thoughts, however. (I know, we disagree on this, you and I.)

InTheGenes, I agree, for a few it might be a deterrent. For the hard core haters it will mean nothing because they simply don't care.
I don't think you and Reba disagree at all. I believe she has been saying the same thing throughout the thread.
You cannot legislate morality.

Remember, hate crimes happen by those dead inside toward those living life to its fullest.

Great statement Wokamuka!

Let's go to the source of the problem and fix it there. (Bush wouldn't like that either since, surprise-surprise, the prison industry is BIG in Texas. No prisoners - no jobs.)

Both sad and funny. The President is now somehow raking in big bucks from the prison system.

Remeber, we are a Republic, there are three branches of government here. It was set up that way for checks, balances, and so no one person has total say in anything.
Sorry for the Civics Lesson but the All Bush Haters/All The Time get to me sometimes.
But, hey, perhaps we could add the President to this legislation and then the haters could be dealt with and imprisoned ~ never mind, I guess that is too much to ask.

 

[MetroGuy03]

ASLGAL,

Your quotes messed up.

"Over 3,000 of our soldiers have been killed. Over 700,000 Iraqis have been killed and over 3,700 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. We’ve spent about $186 billion on the Iraq war and about $66 billion on the war in Afghanistan and we’ve not touched a hair on the head of Osama bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, who is alleged to have ordered the 9/11 attack on our homeland."

SoundOff Blog Network

You didn't get my point about kidnapping George W. Bush's twin daughters. My point is will he care if something happen to his twin daughters while thousands and thousands of people are getting killed because of him? I seriously doubt that. That is the point of this argument.

 

[Foxrac]

ASLGAL,

Your quotes messed up.

"Over 3,000 of our soldiers have been killed. Over 700,000 Iraqis have been killed and over 3,700 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. We’ve spent about $186 billion on the Iraq war and about $66 billion on the war in Afghanistan and we’ve not touched a hair on the head of Osama bin Laden, the head of Al-Qaeda, who is alleged to have ordered the 9/11 attack on our homeland."

SoundOff Blog Network

You didn't get my point about kidnapping George W. Bush's twin daughters. My point is will he care if something happen to his twin daughters while thousands and thousands of people are getting killed because of him? I seriously doubt that. That is the point of this argument.

 

[Texan Guy]

.....this topic is a way off from the target.

BTW, I pretty much agree with Reba. Murder the straight or gay people are the same things.

700,000 people "killed" by George W. Bush? Try Hitler, he killed about 3 million jews, homosexuals, gypises, mental retarded and more.

I personally don't think Bush killed 700,000. Part of it by the accident. Part of it killed by Al-Qaeda. And few part of by murder. We have taken care of the murderers and they will put in the court martials.

 

[Hwy99]

.....this topic is a way off from the target.

BTW, I pretty much agree with Reba. Murder the straight or gay people are the same things.

But who was the actually target? What's up with those high percents of total GLBT community experience the sexual harrassment, violence, murder, etc compare to others that are not?

If we just say "That is just same as murder crime, there is no need to change", then people will never know about the GLBT's issues. We need to get attention and it is TIME for us to stand up.

 

[Texan Guy]

Perhaps it's the police department. Police department CANNOT protect the GLBT community 24/7. They also have to do something else as well. Seattle has about a million and it's hard for the police officers to protect and to serve, you know? City population ALWAYS outnumbered the police officers.

If the police officers aren't doing their jobs like "ahh...it's just a dead gay man on the ground. Move along, there are nothing to see here. We'll find the people who did for this". They should applied for the security at Toy R Us. Really, I think it's detective's job rather than the police officers to find who murdered the gay man.

 

[ASLGAL]

ASLGAL,

Your quotes messed up.

Have to agree, BUT, when one quotes they are reposting the words of others - so - it's the original posters views which are messed up. .>clarification<


Metroguy, If you only visit far left websites you will only get one very narrow and hate filled view.
Suggest to look at facts and not just anti-everything except left wing propaganda bloggers.

Still waiting for proofs against the President.....wait wait wait.....If someone can produce proof I am always happy to hear and change my mind.

 

[Hwy99]

Perhaps it's the police department. Police department CANNOT protect the GLBT community 24/7. They also have to do something else as well. Seattle has about a million and it's hard for the police officers to protect and to serve, you know? City population ALWAYS outnumbered the police officers.

If the police officers aren't doing their jobs like "ahh...it's just a dead gay man on the ground. Move along, there are nothing to see here. We'll find the people who did for this". They should applied for the security at Toy R Us. Really, I think it's detective's job rather than the police officers to find who murdered the gay man.

Yeah you are right, not only government can care of us..

 

[Wokamuka]

The Bottom Line

(Observations listed below denote my own observations upon the United States' Government.)

The Government, which includes many people with many belief systems and many agendas, is slow to react, slow to provide, and slow to be honest.

Only YOU can watch out for #1: YOU.

If you feel that your life is threatened: pack a gun, pepper spray, stun gun, or whatever helps you feel safe.

If you feel that your future is threatened: stock up on food and water, save money (or, if you're serious, gold and diamonds), or live completely self-sufficient.

If you feel that those you love and revere is threatened: use your resources or help your loved ones have the same resources needed for security.

If you believe the Government can protect you, you are going to be very surprised and disappointed.

 

[MetroGuy03]

.....this topic is a way off from the target.

BTW, I pretty much agree with Reba. Murder the straight or gay people are the same things.

700,000 people "killed" by George W. Bush? Try Hitler, he killed about 3 million jews, homosexuals, gypises, mental retarded and more.

I personally don't think Bush killed 700,000. Part of it by the accident. Part of it killed by Al-Qaeda. And few part of by murder. We have taken care of the murderers and they will put in the court martials.

Wrong. Adolf Hilter killed over seven million jews, GLBT, disabled, deaf, and any kind of people that he doesn't agree with.

I don't believe that was an accident at all.

 

[MetroGuy03]

Have to agree, BUT, when one quotes they are reposting the words of others - so - it's the original posters views which are messed up. .>clarification<


Metroguy, If you only visit far left websites you will only get one very narrow and hate filled view.
Suggest to look at facts and not just anti-everything except left wing propaganda bloggers.

Still waiting for proofs against the President.....wait wait wait.....If someone can produce proof I am always happy to hear and change my mind.

If you google it, you will see dozens to hundreds of articles related to that.