BF2S Forums special rights, gay rights, hate crimes

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

A hate crime it not minority specific. Also a hate crime can only be charged when a motive is established.

It's in essence the same as premeditation in a murder case, someone specifically went out and targeted someone or group based on X, Y or Z trait.

Well I know I am going to sound like a smart ass but I am sincere in the asking. COuld you not apply the logic to any group of people? IE a rich guy got car jacked because he was rich and driving a benz. and if you can apply that to everyone, why not just increase the punishments under the current laws instead of re-inventing the wheel?

If you can prove that being rich is not a choice then sure.

What does having a choice got to do with discrimination or singling someone out?

Also what you are saying is, the rich guy had it coming because he was rich, he shouldn't have been rich. that is just as absurd as saying the black guy had it coming because he was black, he shouldn't have been black.

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-25 10:44:39)

Chuck and Larry bro.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well I know I am going to sound like a smart ass but I am sincere in the asking. COuld you not apply the logic to any group of people? IE a rich guy got car jacked because he was rich and driving a benz. and if you can apply that to everyone, why not just increase the punishments under the current laws instead of re-inventing the wheel?

If you can prove that being rich is not a choice then sure.

What does having a choice got to do with discrimination or singling someone out?

Because it's based on something you have no control over. If you go for a job interview they are going to discriminate over your education and experience levels, which is perfectly fine and even encouraged because it is something people can change. But to not hire you because you're white is illegal.

Also what you are saying is, the rich guy had it coming because he was rich, he shouldn't have been rich. that is just as absurd as saying the black guy had it coming because he was black, he shouldn't have been black.

He got his car jacked because it was worth more then a rusty 20 year old corolla to the thief. If a poor person was driving that same benz he'd still have been car jacked. If the Black guy wasn't black he wouldn't have been targeted.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-06-25 11:00:00)

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

If you can prove that being rich is not a choice then sure.

What does having a choice got to do with discrimination or singling someone out?

Because it's based on something you have no control over. If you go for a job interview they are going to discriminate over your education and experience levels, which is perfectly fine and even encouraged because it is something people can change. But to not hire you because you're white is illegal.

Also what you are saying is, the rich guy had it coming because he was rich, he shouldn't have been rich. that is just as absurd as saying the black guy had it coming because he was black, he shouldn't have been black.

He got his car jacked because it was worth more then a rusty 20 year old corolla to the thief. If a poor person was driving that same benz he'd still have been car jacked.

and if the rich guy were black and the assailant white the rich black guy could argue hate crime. See the problem?

lowing wrote:

13rin wrote:

Jay wrote:

The law passed in New York even prevents churches from having to face lawsuits based on the law. No one is going to be able to sue to have their gay wedding inside of a Catholic church.

If I remember correctly that was the hang up with the legislation... Insulating the church from litigation.

How about a ships captain who is also religious? Is he to be protected as well?

The legal marriage act is important. In the eyes of the law, a religious marriage ceremony doesn't mean jack.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

What does having a choice got to do with discrimination or singling someone out?

Because it's based on something you have no control over. If you go for a job interview they are going to discriminate over your education and experience levels, which is perfectly fine and even encouraged because it is something people can change. But to not hire you because you're white is illegal.


He got his car jacked because it was worth more then a rusty 20 year old corolla to the thief. If a poor person was driving that same benz he'd still have been car jacked.

and if the rich guy were black and the assailant white the rich black guy could argue hate crime. See the problem?

Based on what? You've given no motive other then theft of a car. So the race of the victim/assailant is mute until you do.

Oh wait, if the white guy called him the n word ,THEN it is different, NOW we have a hate crime right?

Ummm, reality does show that a black person needs little evidence, if any, to accuse racism or a hate crime. Anyone that works for a living knows of examples where a black person who is threatened with termination will play the race card. How about Henry Lewis Gates, he ring a bell?

and why will they play the race card? because they HAVE a race card. and the race card equals special considerations.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

and if the rich guy were black and the assailant white the rich black guy could argue hate crime. See the problem?

Based on what? You've given no motive other then theft of a car. So the race of the victim/assailant is mute until you do.

Oh wait, if the white guy called him the n word ,THEN it is different, NOW we have a hate crime right?

Ummm, reality does show that a black person needs little evidence, if any, to accuse racism or a hate crime. Anyone that works for a living knows of examples where a black person who is threatened with termination will play the race card. How about Henry Lewis Gates, he ring a bell?

and why will they play the race card? because they HAVE a race card. and the race card equals special considerations.

You're getting closer, but there's still no motive or evidence to show that the assailant chose his victim based on skin colour.

Anyone can play the race card, why? Because everyone HAS a race, but it means jack shit unless you can prove it.

And no, Henry Lewis Gates means absolutely nothing to me.

death to all faygits

i'm mooslim i'm allowed to say this.

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

The legal marriage act is important. In the eyes of the law, a religious marriage ceremony doesn't mean jack.

Ok but again, does a ships captain HAVE to perform the ceremony if he has religious objections?

No, using your own logic he's refusing service to a same sex service not to homosexuals. If he were to marry 2 straight people of the same sex and not 2 homosexuals then yes it's discrimination based on sexual orientation, otherwise it's not.

hmmm, you got a point there, I like it. As long as you are adopting my logic that is.

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-25 11:49:40)

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Too much random shit and I don't ahve time, but lowing fat people are not a protected class under hate crime legislation so no you would not be charged with a hate crime.

Oh so we are distinguishing between protected classes of people and non protected classes of people, as if one group gets more rights and protection than another? Isn't that at  the core of discrimination?

heh, you won't get that back . . .

I think the worst problem pertaining to this subject is the fact that homosexuals are marked as a sub-culture and as a group simply other than mainstream sexuality.

The number of shirt-and-tie straight shooters that secretly jack off to gay porn and bestiality probably far outnumber the population of openly gay men. This is only speaking for western societies (America). Everyone in here is obsessively nosy and gossipy, so much so that we have become a culture of judges, where opinion out weighs fact. Were we to stop being such tight ass puritans and stop giving a fuck about people's personal lives then we wouldn't force people into such heavily divided clusters of public groups. We should be one public.

nothing is stopping them.