As pitiful as it is ... I doubt I'll ever see a single post from you condemning the following:1) North Carolina pastor calls for gays to be put in concentration campshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2839yEazcs2) Texas Gay Man Beaten, Stabbed, Thrown Into Lit Fire Barrel at Party http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/10/31/texas-gay-man-beaten-stabbed-thrown-into-lit-fire-barrel-at-party/3) "Faggot" and "queers" are spray painted on a man's vehicle: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/06/arlington-police-identify-suspects-in-alleged-anti-gay-graffiti-incident.html/4) A man's home is spray painted with the word "queers" and his barn set on fire, killing his horses: http://www.progressivepuppy.com/the_progressive_puppy/2011/04/anti-gay-hate-crime-burns-horses-to-death.htmlOf course, there are always your friends at Westboro protesting at funerals and taunting the families of the dead. Their worst crime is being (if ever-so-slightly) hyper-Calvinist, a minimal heresy.
James said:Of course, there are always your friends at Westboro protesting at funerals and taunting the families of the dead.What is this supposed to be? Guilt by association? In any case, I'm not "friends" with anyone at Westboro. I don't even know anything about the church apart from what's in the media and what I can Google.I doubt I'll ever see a single post from you condemning the followingI also didn't happen to do a post on the gunman who killed several people at a Wisconsin Sikh temple. Are you going to say "I doubt I'll ever see a single post from you condemning Sikh shootings"? If so, then why would you expect someone like me to make it a point to publicly condemn the shootings?Indeed, there's a host of other issues I haven't done condemnatory posts on. For example, I haven't done a post condemning child trafficking in Southeast Asia. Likewise I haven't done a post condemning Mexican drug cartels. Nor have I done a post condemning Fox Studios for canceling one of my favorite TV shows Firefly years ago. And let's not forget I haven't done a post condemning that trampire K-Stew for breaking poor old R-Pattz's heart! Are you gonna call me out for omitting these as well?As a purely practical matter, I don't have time to post on every issue which some random irate commenter happens to find condemnatory whether or not it is truly worthy of condemnation.
i) We have a nation of 300 MM inhabitants. All you can do is scrape up a handful of incidents. Fact is, normal folks have fewer rights than sodomites. Killing a straight man or woman is not a "hate crime." It's straights who are the second-class citizens. ii) Why don't you talk about homosexual Americans who make special trips to Asia where child prostitution is legal? iii) Our "friends at Westboro"? You've overstayed your welcome here. Don't come back.
i) You seem to be misinformed about what constitutes a hate crime. Not all murders are hate crimes regardless of who the victim is. Motivation is at the heart of what is considered a hate crime. The majority of hate crimes are racially motivated and most of those victims are straight.ii) Do you really think only homosexuals go to Asia for the prostitutes?
JC"i) You seem to be misinformed about what constitutes a hate crime. Not all murders are hate crimes regardless of who the victim is."Obviously. That's my point"Motivation is at the heart of what is considered a hate crime. The majority of hate crimes are racially motivated and most of those victims are straight."Straight minorities. "ii) Do you really think only homosexuals go to Asia for the prostitutes?"I'm drawing attention to James's selective outrage.
Not all hate crimes are against minorities. There have been many hate crime convictions where the victims where straight and white. You are protected under hate crime laws just the same as anyone else. I hardly see how that makes you a "second-class citizen".
You're being disingenuous. Hate crimes cover "protected groups."
You need to read the actual hate crimes act(18 U.S.C. § 249) because you are mistaken. I won't quote it here since you can view online at the justice department web site. Based on the actual law you are just as protected as anyone else.
I've read DOJ analyses of the law, which specify designated protected groups.
Any race is a protected group silly. Also, any sexual orientation is a protected group although I am not aware of any cases where a homosexual assaulted someone because they were straight. Read the law. Its clear. I'm not sure why you think you would not be in a "protected group". Maybe you can explain how it is that you think straight white males are not protected under the hate crimes law.
To say every group is a protected group under hate crime laws is nonsense. There's a reason why hate crime laws explicitly single out certain groups as protected groups. And it's not coincidental that protected groups coincide with political correctness. I'm not going to waste time correcting your willful stupidity.
You are correct, it is nonsense to say every group is protected under the hate crime law, that is why I explicitly state two groups; race and sexual orientation. There are also other groups that are protected. From the D.O.J. the following is protected under the hate crimes act; religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.If you have a reference where the law singles out specific races or sexual orientation to be protected under the hate crimes act please post it so we may all revel in my so called willful stupidity.
You've answered your own question. Of course hate crime laws single out a specific sexual orientations for special protection, namely LGBT.
Of course you provide no reference. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I'm starting to think you are purposefully being dishonest. You can have the last word on this subject however if You cannot provide a reference to back up your claim I suggest you not bother.
Once again, you're being willfully stupid. "Sexual orientation" is code language for LGBT. That's the social context of such usage. Words have cultural connotations. It's a loaded expression. That's also the legislative intent behind hate-crime laws. It's not to protect heterosexuals, or whites. Rather, it's a political weapon.You're welcome to play the politically correct minstrel, but don't expect me to put a dollar in your hat.
"The wicked strut about on every sideWhen vileness is exalted among the sons of men."Psalm 12:8
I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this, and perhaps someone has discussed this somewhere. But it strikes me as more than a coincidence that homosexual activists use an inverted rainbow as their banner. Now we know that the rainbow was God's covenant sign to Noah that He would never again destroy the Earth with a flood. By inverting the colours of the rainbow, it's as if they are shaking their fists at God: "Who are YOU to judge US? We take your sign of covenant with mankind and turn it around in your face! WE will judge and destroy YOU!"
I was unaware of the inverted rainbow so I did some checking and you appear to be wrong about this. The most popular rainbow banner in the US is the pride flag and it is modeled after actual rainbows and not inverted. Where did you get your information that they use an inverted rainbow as their banner?
JC,Yes, I checked also and you are right, as far as I can tell. I was apparently misinformed about the inversion--but it was many years ago, and I can't say where I got that information. Thank you for the correction. I still wonder about the spiritual component behind choosing God's covenant symbol to represent pride in sexual "lifestyles." However, to be frank, I never gave the issue of homosexuality much thought (hence the continuing incorrect inversion idea) until the explosion of militant activism of recent years and now the issue of so-called "gay marriage."
Whatever else may be said, the incidents "James" links to - if these reports are true, which is a big "if" in this area - are rotten, shameful things to do to anyone.