Absolutely. Calling someone a fag is bad enough, but calling someone a fag and then hitting him is an act not against simply the person but the gay community as a whole. The effects of that crime reverberate throughout the community striking fear in the very heart of the community. When a man is called a fag and then hit it sends the message that none in the gay community are safe. Calling him an asshole is a different story because it's not a community targeted word.

__________________

yep - no problem justifying that at all.

of course, YOU'RE WRONG - you have not proven a hate crime.

your scenarios are not examples of hate crimes.

now, when you decide to go find a fag to beat up and hit some gay guy over the head with a concrete block screaming at him that he's a fag, THEN it's a hate crime. Because you assaulted him BECAUSE he was gay.

I'm really sorry that you are incapable of grasping the difference. But there is no point in continuing a discussion when you are either incapable (or intentionally) refusing to understand what a hate crime IS.

False...yet AGAIN!!!!...

I could round up 100 gay people and call all of them a "fag" one at a time and not all will be offended...Some might even come back with a quip like "What gave it away, toots?"...

So you're "It's hurting the gay community as a whole." theory is crap...

For more information, please refer to the gay guy that willingly and intentionally had "poofter" on his license plate...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

We should remember that in a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others.That said,citizans must never commit criminal acts on account of their objection to the beliefs and practices of others. Hate crimes disturb the public order and violate the individual's safety.There must be safety for all or there is safety for none in a democratic society.I do have some concern with "self-interpretation" as to weather or not a hate crime has been committed because this can be subjective! The jury must ultimately decide the validity of the charge but there is no doubt in my mind that hate crimes endanger the public.

Some object mainly to the idea of penalty-enhancement for hate crimes.They argue that crime is crime but I dissagree,bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harm on their victims, and incite community unrest.They have the potential for greater disruption than crimes that are decided on an individual basis.Left unchecked,hate crimes can spawn revolution and the destruction of the existing community.Some might view this as natural or progressive,I don't share their viewpoint.Again...citizens must never commit criminal acts on "account" of their objections to the beliefs and practices of others!

-

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

But the "subjectivity" is NOT subjective at all in protected classes...

A noose CAN BE construed as a hateful act meant to attack a certain group....and almost always is...

But you can go to a public festival like the one in San Francisco two months ago and pick up your cross-dildo and Jesus-buttplug for a small fee and the same groups will say "Oh, but that's different."...

Here are the FBI reports of hate crime last year...

Anti-Black 3,136
Anti-Jewish 1,027
Anti-White 1,008
Anti-Male Homosexual 881
Anti-Hispanic 770
Anti-Female Homosexual 192
Anti-Islamic 191

Only one group there that doesn't "need" protection in the eyes of the rest of them...

And they're the only ones not asking for it...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

And when the need arises and they ask for protection,they can use existing precedent for said request!

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

Your claim is wrong.
It is still just one crime.

You could be found guilty of assault.
You could be found guilty of assault, with hate crime qualifier.
But you will never be found guilty of a hate crime without first being found guilty of assault.
"hate" is still not a crime.

Your analogy is like complaining that a person can get drunk, but he can't get drunk and drive.

Motivation HAS ALWAYS been a tool used by our judges in deciding the sentence for crimes.
I don't understand how people can suddenly create a big deal out of it just because the people have set down guidelines on motivations for crimes.

Hate to break it to you sunshine but there is a HUGE difference.
If I left such an item planted in the front lawn of some local Christian, I would argue that would probably be a hate crime.

But on the flip side, if you want to buy a "noose" from somebody's store and use it in your own home for decoration, that is NOT a hate crime.

To blindly compare the two is crazy.


What group is that?
White? You listed that.
Christian? It was ON THE WEB-SITE, but you cut that out of your post.
Straight? It was ON THE WEB-SITE, but you cut that out of your post.

Anti-Catholic 81
Anti-Protestant 62
Anti-Heterosexual 28

So please explain what group doesn't "need" protection???

So, tell me, does someone who puts a burning cross on a front yard deserve the same punishment as someone who builds a simple bonfire?

Well, here's the question.

Was there an actual increase in these types of crimes... or is it simply that more people are reporting them?