Westboro

Think about homeless children in third world countries that rob from food stands. Do you think they hate the person who owns the stand? I doubt it.

that's about the most ignorant thing i've ever heard. you dont need to hate someone to commit a crime against them. say you're a broke *** mofo, so you take up your 9mm, and rob the local gas station. it wasnt because you hate the big oil companies, its because you need to pay the bills.

you see a woman on the street, and you're a masterpickpocket. you dont take her billfold because you hate her/think shes unworthy of money, you do it because she looks like an easy target.

hate crime = crime against someone for association with/of a group: race, religion, color, class, disability, etc.

this.

My understanding of most hate crime laws is they are sort of "bonus" penalties. In the earlier example the hacking is the issue and what is punished but the hate crime part would increase the sentence. Most of the arguments against hate crime law is that it punishes motivation which many consider not of the concern of the law.

Back on topic, supreme court right/westboro are asshats.

You can rob someone for pure monetary gratification.

Thieves and robbers don't ~HATE~ the people they rob, they do it for monetary gain or the buzz of it.

Moron much?

They should just pass a law that you cannot disturb a funeral service or something along those lines.
(Yes I realize there is more involved in making a law other than just doing it)

I agree with that.

just shoot the *** next time, that way we can have a real court case and target gun control.

The idea of a hate crime seems a bit silly, its just crime, people try to color it with a broad brush sometimes.

It would only be a hate crime if someone admits their reason for committing the crime was purely based on the fact of their race, religion, class, disability, sexuality, etc.

And that being the case, no one would admit to that being the reason why they did the crime (seeing as hate crimes give sharper punishments) (Unless they are stupid or full of themselves or something). So you will get a normal crime with no basis on the victim, but they will paint it as a hate crime.

What are the odds of a person committing a crime and the victim is a different race, religion, class, disability, sexuality, etc? I would think probably 20-25% of hitting at least one of those things between the criminal and the victim. (at least more so in the US)

Good. I'd be very concerned if they hadn't.

I understand the motivation to make smaller crimes with "nobler" motives less significant, but in every case of stealing, the perpetrator of the crime judges the victim to be of a lesser value. Isn't this the foundation of rac/sex-ism?.

Hate crime legislation is dumb, period. If a crime is considered worse because of words the attacker says, or the thoughts in their head, then it is only a small step to make the words and thoughts themselves a crime. Saying not all crimes are based on hate is like saying not all rape is based on misogyny.

inb4 you can rape a woman and love her at the same time.

so this family of religious nutjobs get to crash a wedding, shout slanderous horseshit, and they get off because they had Freedom of Speech on their side?

There should be a by-law in the First Amendment which CLEARLY says if its to spew slanderous, religious filth which in turn hinders anyone else, they can legally be shot on sight.

i dont think this is a valid theory, as a teenager, when i commited theft, it was because i knew i couldn't have it otherwise. i harbored no malcontent towards the store, i just wanted to fit in witht he rest of the ipod crowd. so i took some for my friends and i (500$+ = grand theft here, considered a larger crime.)

it wasnt because we deemed corporations of lesser value, we wanted to improve our -value- per se with the community of wealthier kids. to get off saying all criminals think this was is a tad ...ludicrious?

I'm going to point back at my Child post.
I doubt a child is thinking about the worth of someone while stealing to live.

you're assuming that the perp is judging anyone, they don't care, seriously.


However your second statement is very valid, you can't charge somebody because of their thoughts.

So you mean to say that we should limit free speech further because there's a group of *** *** that abuse it?

Yes, those guys are slimes amongst slimes.

But they have the right to do what they do.

It should be illegal to not be accepting of other peoples cultural/religious/sexual orientation choices.

lolwut

It's my right to be racist, sexist, etc.

Why should I give up that right?

Not to mention that it's a human survival trait.

i disagree, no man has a right to say someone else's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc is wrong. to use god as an excuse to back up their hatred is just plain disgusting, these westboro fools are no more tolerant than KKK members, and i find it absolutely appauling we cant do anything about it because its their 'religion.'

sure, you can say obama is an idiot, that isnt hurting his credibility/confidance in the people. calling him a terrorist muslim on the other hand is just plain slanderous remark, and isnt tolerated under 'free speech' if you go around publically publishing it. its no different if they go around hating on gays for the same idiotic reason.

It's their belief that they are right, but you tell them they are wrong. Double standers suck broski

A hate crime only applies if you can prove that the crime only occurred because of the attackers feeling towards whatever he hates about you, in my case gay.

truck of guys drives by me walking , see me wearing a rainbow bracelet turn around throw food at me while yelling ***. This is a hate crime, it would not have occurred had the boys not been so far up the closet.(although no legal action was taken)

My friends broke up with hey boyfriend after he showed up to the bar after being told not to(as we were celebrating a friends birthday who did not like him). She ask me to stay the night in case he comes back to her place to get his things. I inform her I'll do it but I'm 3 sheets to the wind. We get back to her place, and I'm passing out on the bed before she's even done closing the door. He shows up a little bit later yelling things sees me starts yelling fagot homo, a bunch of other stuff while proceeding to throw punch after punch. This however would NOT 100% be a hate crime, because him and I have pre-existing beef because he doesn't believe any one is really gay, so he didn't like that his gf was my *** hag.
In other words his stupidity caused him to lash out at me as the one who broke him and her up when in realty it was the coke he was doing and the aggressive behavior ect... This goes to trial sometime soon it got pushed back, but it will not be tried as a hate crime just assault.

i disagree, no man has a right to say how someone else should live, feel, and act. it's plain wrong. to use racism as an excuse to back up the limiting of one's own human experience is just plain disgusting, pretentious, extremist, fools like you are no more tolerant than KKK members, and i find it absolutely appalling that you chasticize the human experience of others because you don't understand moral relativity.

be my guest, please explain to me how its a double standard?
where am i going around saying its ok to bash on someone for being different, while condemning these westboro idiots?

Im going to try that, then pull out the first Amendment and race cards in court.

and you'd be ok if i just claimed you were a dumbass racist chink, based of the prejudice/presumptions based on what you're giving me here? im ok to have this opinion and use derogatory statements because its part of the 'human experience?'

lets examine everything wrong with this statement:
1. implying you are asian based on game name/avatar
2. implying you are racist because you approve of racism
3. implying you are unintelligent because you have a different opinion

it isn't "chasticize the human experience of others because you don't understand moral relativity," it's called having some class and decency. you can go around saying to yourself every racist term in the book in your head as people walk by, but the instant you do it verbally, you're just a plain bigot.

You're saying that Westboro is full of idiots and should not go around telling people what to believe in etc. But in doing so you're telling them not to believe in what they do.

You're pretty much doing what they are doing, yet calling it wrong when they do it. Albeit you're not doing it in the same rude way as them.

You're suggesting that simply because some thieves aren't aware of the big picture, the big picture doesn't exist.

That's pretty shortsighted, regardless if you're conscious that it is happening, IT IS HAPPENING. You did think at some point think, "hey I deserve the store's stuff without paying for it". It's irrelevant if you did so because the store was run by a bunch of black people, jews, or rich upper class white investment bankers. You already devalued/degraded the people that run it when you stole from them.

Religion does not exist in my personal world, therefore it does not exist at all.

Gylfie, you Jewish?