dagblog - Comments for "Persecution Politics: Conservatives Challenge New Hate Crime Law"

Thanks for the legal analysis

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:26:00 +0000

In reply to I suspect their filing will

Thanks for the legal analysis and the links. I'd also add that the law expressly rules out any abridgement of the First Amendment (not that it would be Constitutional in any case):

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

That said, I hesitate to respond seriously to the right's objections, since I don't think that they've been offered in good faith. The opposition to the act is not based on any serious assessment of its constitutionality or its effect on Christians. It's simply one more opportunity to flog the persistent myth of Christian persecution. This myth has political value for the right wing. Thus, conservative leaders have treated the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act as a political opportunity even while decrying it as a catastrophe.

I suspect their filing will

Tad Cook — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:38:29 +0000

In reply to Persecution Politics: Conservatives Challenge New Hate Crime Law

I suspect their filing will be thrown out, because they claim certain people are "elevated to protected class status", which is false. Protected class does not refer to certain groups of people, it refers to a classification.

Protected class under the law refers to race, religion, gender, etc, but not any PARTICULAR race, religion, etc.

It is confusing, because when we hear the word "class", we naturally think of middle class, upper class, working class, etc. But in the legal context, in this area of law, class refers to a classification, such as race, religion, gender, country of origin, etc.

So if the protected class is religion, it is never a case where Baptists are protected, for instance, but not Mormons or Catholics. If you are discriminated against, say, in employment or public accommodation, in order to remain within the law, the discrimination cannot be based on race, religion, etc, and it is often difficult to prove anyway.

If a business bars you from entering because you are wearing a tank top, that is legal, because manner of dress is not a protected class under the law.

So their whole premise is faulty, and distorts the wording and the meaning of the law. The law doesn't change how any particular group is treated, it merely prevents discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It treats all people equally.

This same group has been spreading the lie that this law prohibits hate speech, which it does not.

They can espouse any damned-fool doctrine they want, but they should probably be careful not to shout something about the victim's religion, race, etc, when violently assaulting them. That is when the law kicks in.

You will often hear the falsehood that "the law doesn't protect me, as a heterosexual white male, because I am not in any protected class". This is nonsense. I can give you plenty of examples of African Americans being prosecuted for a bias-related crime because at the time they were assaulting a white person they yelled about hating white people or they don't think white people should be in their neighborhood. Several recent incidents like this in Seattle, here is one:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/184568.asp

and another:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/193234.asp

I know that a comment on a

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:56:34 +0000

In reply to That Hofstadter essay should

I know that a comment on a stale dag post isn't exactly the front page of the Times, but here's the link: http://www.harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706

That Hofstadter essay should

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:33:26 +0000

In reply to Persecution Politics: Conservatives Challenge New Hate Crime Law

That Hofstadter essay should basically be on the front page of the Times and the Post every morning these days. It's a useful summary of a lot of the news.

You'll have to ask the

Nebton — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:36:28 +0000

In reply to So it's a Biblically-based

You'll have to ask the Latriner, but I'm pretty sure this is backed up scripturally by God opening up a can of whoop-ass on Sodom and Gomorrah. We do want to be God-like don't we?

So it's a Biblically-based

Orlando — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:46:26 +0000

In reply to Persecution Politics: Conservatives Challenge New Hate Crime Law

So it's a Biblically-based religious belief that it's okay for a gang of testosterone-laden, drunk, straight men to lie in wait outside of gay bars for a gay man to exit the bar alone so that they can follow him to an unpeopled area and beat the shit out of him? Is that in the Book of John or Matthew?