Christians claim hate crimes law an effort to 'eradicate' their beliefs

[TheWriter]

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/christians-claim-hate-crimes-law-effort-eradicate-beliefs/

A Christian group in Michigan has filed a lawsuit alleging that a package of hate crimes laws named after murder victim Matthew Shepard is an affront to their religious freedom.

Far from the intended purpose of severely punishing criminals who commit unspeakable acts against a persecuted minority group, the religious activists claim the laws are a guarded effort to "eradicate" their beliefs.

Filed by the Thomas More Law Center -- which bills itself as the religious answer to the American Civil Liberties Union -- the complaint claims that protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people "is an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy."

The suit was placed on behalf of American Family Association of Michigan president Gary Glenn, along with pastors Rene Ouellette, Levon Yuille and James Combs.

I'm going to open this to the floor.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm going to step up to this one.

I'm split.  Honestly. Deeply.

The hate crime laws do a valuable thing to make it clear that this sort of thing SHOULD not be tolerated in modern society.

BUT.

The laws are sometime written badly, too open and can be too widely enforced. If I 'Joe X Christian' hit a guy for any reason and it turns out that he IS gay (Which Joe is opposed to, but isn't aware that guy IS gay) does that make ANY violent action I take an automatic hate crime?

So versions of the Hate Crime statues can be very.. open in their outlook.

[HairyHeretic]

I don't think so. I think the hate crime angle comes in if your reason for hitting a person is because of race / creed / sexual orientation or what have you, or if the degree of violence is increased because of that.

Frankly I've seen this sort of story crop up before. There is a subsection of christianity which is only too happy to scream "Help! Help! We're being oppressed!" when they can't have their own way.

If they want to be bigots, that's their outlook. But their right to act on those beliefs stops when it starts impinging on another persons safety.

[Sabby]

Filed by the Thomas More Law Center -- which bills itself as the religious answer to the American Civil Liberties Union -- the complaint claims that protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people "is an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy."

These people need to understand that the world doesn't follow them. Their entitled to their beliefs... but it has been a long time since not going to Church has been a demonizing event. It seems every other month some priest or the Pope is claiming that the world is losing its way. Thats not the case at all... their losing us. The world does not NEED Christianity to function in a morally rich way. The sooner they stop whining like spoilt children, the sooner we'll outgrow the need for hate crime laws in the first place.

[Ket]

A hate crime is a crime done with malicious intent based upon a person's belief that they person they are victimizing is of a different race/religion/sexuality. It does not matter what the race/religion/sexuality are. The role can be completely reversed. What if someone who is gay beats/maims/kills a christian?  They'd all be screaming for punishment under a hate crime then.

It boils down to them wanting the world to conform to their beliefs, instead of them conforming to a world where their beliefs plus every body's beliefs are equally accepted.

[National Acrobat]

I'm with Callie on this one. I feel both ways regarding it. It could be cleverly applied to abusive situations where there clearly was no hateful intent intended, but then it could be twisted around.

On the other hand, there are way to many instances where people are targeted specifically for violence due to their gender, creed, religion, belief, orientation, etc.

I think to make them effective, and not subject to abuse, they need to be written more concise, with tighter definitions and meanings. People in America are quiet adept at finding and exploiting loopholes.

[Xenophile]

Hate Crime Laws is incredibly valuable, but should they be used to defend bigotry? No, I believe not.

The article seems to point at a specific incident when the defence of HBT's is considered a hate crime. If a religion is actively out to demonize a group of people, then it cannot be defended with hate crime laws!

It's a goddamned paradox, people!

[RubySlippers]

The government should not be deciding the motives for a crime is sufficient for a bigger penalty, that smacks of a novel like 1984 or A Brave New World. If I ,just as an example, hot someone who is black its a crime called assault a hard action. Lets say I before that said ,as an example this is not my views, a filthy n***** scum it may jump to an assault with a hate crime. But we have free speech in this country even unpopular or disgusting speech should be legal like going up using the former "N" word to a black person in a pointy hat white hat and robes. If they decide to punch the person then they are commiting a crime and since the person could be white that could be racially motivated.

Its just bad all around to decide motivations are worth extra penalties.

If your wondering I'm also opposed to laws that ban discrimination on any area if this store chain doesn't WANT to hire women or blacks that should be legal. I just have the right to not go to that business chain. And the government could favor contracts to businesses that do hire equally. So there are ways to get there without making it illegal its called public pressure and using the authority of government to have government agencies and accomodation for people be made. And encouraging businesses to follow.

[Valerian]

First of all, I don't really know how the hate crimes laws are worded, and it's very probable that some better, clearer definitions are needed.

But unless Michigan has laws against giving anti-homosexuality sermons, and are using those laws to prosecute religious leaders, I can't figure out what this religious group is talking about.  For there to be a hate crime, there must first be a crime.

The group clearly seems to think that hate crime laws are the thin end of some kind of wedge, but I'm not at all sure where, exactly, they think such laws will lead.  If anything, it seems that recent public opinion has been to narrow the definition of what constitutes a hate crime, not widen it.

All the hate crimes laws are meant to deal with are people who dislike those who happen to be gay (or of a different race, belief system, etc.) so much that they go out and throw rocks at, threaten, attack, or otherwise commit crimes against people belonging to those groups.  If all this religious group wants is the protection of their right to sit around quietly hating other groups, or talking among themselves about what horrible sinners Those Other People are, they've already got that in the U.S. under the first amendment, and I don't believe anyone's threatening to take that away.

[Xenophile]

I can imagine that some radical sermons would encourage homosexuals to be treated differently from other people in the community. Saying that "Them gays are gross" is a First Amendment issue, but saying "We will have nothing to do with them! Cast them out! Refuse to sell your goods to them, curse them, spit on them" and so on, it's a hate crime.

Even a seemingly mild change of words can make the difference in these issues.

[Valerian]

That's a fine point for the courts to hash out, though I see what you mean.  But, episodes of Law & Order aside, I'm pretty sure it's extremely rare to have a successful prosecution of a claim of being brainwashed, temporarily insane with religious fervor, or otherwise convinced to commit a hate crime based on someone's sermons or other religious teachings.

[Xenophile]

That isn't the point. The point is that according to the law, you will not encourage hate. Saying "Them fags should die" is very harsh, and saying "A good Christian should kill fags" is a CLEAR hate crime.

Those are the circumstances I could see warrant extremist Christians to be filed for hate crimes. But this article points to a christian group that wants to use hate crime laws to defend themselves when they are not allowed to bash gays and other groups. This is a paradox, because either way, a group that should be defended will be prosecuted.

If the attitude towards religion or the hate crime laws will not be revised, these kidns of cases will continue to present difficult legal dilemmas.

[Valerian]

The point is that according to the law, you will not encourage hate.

Is that correct?  As mentioned above, I'm not familiar with the legal wording, but I didn't think the laws were anywhere near that general.

[Xenophile]

That's a basic in Hate Crime Law (at least where I'm from). Encouraging hatred and hostile actions (hate crimes) is a hate crime in itself.

[Sabby]

Telling someone to drop their Mars Bar wrapper on the bus is encouraging littering, and a crime in itself, I guess.

[HairyHeretic]

Bit of an overview of it here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat1.htm

[Valerian]

Some legal definitions of hate crimes that I found after a quick troll on the net:

Hate Crimes Statistics Act (1990): "... crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." (Public Law 101-275).
 
Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA; 1997): "Hate crimes--or bias-motivated crimes--are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin."
 
Anti-Defamation League (ADL): A hate crime is "any crime committed because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender [male or female] or sexual orientation." 5
 
National Education Association (NEA): "Hate crimes and violent acts are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her beliefs or mental or physical characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation." 

These all begin with crimes, and none of them mention simply encouraging hatred, unless that's done in the course of committing a crime, perhaps.

Whether we should judge motives unless there happens to be some exceptionally clear-cut evidence of those motives is another question; but as the laws stand I still don't think I get what that particular religious group is in an uproar about.

The quote is from religioustolerance.org, if anyone's wondering.

And Hairy sort of beat me to it, but I'll post as is anyway.  Heh.

[Xenophile]

Hm. I realize now that I'm talking about Hate Crimes specifications of the Swedish legal system, not the American one.

You can probably ignore what I said about "encouraging hate crime is a hate crime in itself".

[Sabby]

I am of the opinion that no law can ever be perfect, and that the law system in all its current incarnations are a flawed premise. Last time I voiced these opinions (In the SB, months ago) someone took offense and was under the impression I'd prefer a lawless world ruled by anarchy... not true at all.

All I mean is that the law, as a clearly defined system, with rigid guidelines, is in stark contrast to human nature. No matter how well defined or clearly written, there will always be situations where it cannot be applied in an ideal fashion. They could spend a decade rewriting these hate crime laws until they're practically air tight, and still there would be situations where an unbiased jury is split down the middle on who did what and yada yada.

Even in saying that, I agree with hate crime laws needing to be thoroughly worded.

[Jude]

I still don't understand why we need to take people's justifications for their actions into account when we punish them.

I don't know if Hate Crime Legislation seemed particularly aimed at eradicating a particular belief, but it certainly integrates a disdainful attitude towards it into law.

I don't think Government should be expressing opinions or punishing people for holding certain points of view.

Law is about maintaining order and a productive society in my view.

[ChrisF]

Personally, I think that if Joe X Christian punches anybody, he should be held accountable for punching someone. After all, if one motivation can be used to intensify a punishment, a different one could likely be used to lighten it, which I think is all wrong. (The obvious exception being the event of an accident, wherein Joe trips over a rock and his hand flies into someone's face.) IMO, crime is crime, hateful or not. Then again, I'm a (mostly) straight white male, so I don't get a lot of discrimination (except from scholarships, but that's a whole different matter.)

Still, this Christian group is taking a personal offense to something that wasn't intended to be personal. It's the people like that that make the whole religion look bad..

[kylie]

I still don't understand why we need to take people's justifications for their actions into account when we punish them.

Here are some responses to that.
http://ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2008%20HV%20Report%20smaller%20file.pdf  (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs 2008 report, p.85)

If a stranger bumps you and then immediately apologizes, because the contact was accidental, most of us would be less irritated than we would if we were bumped and the person responded with “get out of my way” instead of an apology. Even a minor act of intentional intimidation is more upsetting than an accident with perhaps more damaging effects. The motive - the intent to intimidate - is important. Similarly, most of us would agree that someone charged with assault who shows that their motive was self defense, ought to be acquitted. The motive of keeping oneself safe justifies the act.

          The overall effect of the violence is also relevant. Violence perpetrated randomly, or solely for economic gain, certainly causes harm and trauma to the victim. However, when a person or a group intentionally selects a victim based on a belief that the victim is more deserving of violence or more vulnerable to violence, the trauma and fear is compounded. In the U.S., people belonging to certain groups are taught to expect violence in our lives solely because of who we are or how we look. Those groups include women, people of color, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, transgender and gender nonconforming people, homeless people, people with disabilities, young people, and elderly people, to name a few. When a member of one of these groups is targeted because of hatred against that group, the fear generated by that act ripples out into the larger community.

I don't know if Hate Crime Legislation seemed particularly aimed at eradicating a particular belief, but it certainly integrates a disdainful attitude towards it into law. 
I don't think Government should be expressing opinions or punishing people for holding certain points of view. 
Law is about maintaining order and a productive society in my view.

Beliefs that people are created equal and should be given an equal opportunity to pursue liberty and happiness, are also rather "particular."  If the belief you want to defend here is expressed as encouragement of making symbolic attacks upon historically oppressed people of certain identities (that is, specifically what hate crimes legislation aims to restrict), then it sounds like you're for deleting a major and very popular ideal of the country, enshrined from its very beginning.

          Where willful abuses and intimidation specifically against certain minorities -- crimes intended to send a message that advocates more abuse and inequality -- are overlooked, then another kind of order is actually being pursued.  I don't mean that we should do everything exactly as the founders imagined in their time of slavery and bald-faced male privilege.  However, resistance to protections for historically disadvantaged minorities may keep us away from creating an atmosphere of equal protection or opportunity.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm a Roman Catholic and as such there are certain things I take on faith because those tenets are the basis of my beliefs.  There are other issues my 'church' supports that have nothing to do with my beliefs or my faith and I reserve the right to form my own opinions on those issues.  Within any organization there are individuals who care passionately and others who could not care less.  I read somewhere, I don't recall the source, that 10% are the passionate ones, 30% covers the I don't care group and the 60% in the middle are the ones who care about the organization and not themselves.

If we apply the law with equality to all and not by degree of guilt or degree of seriousness of the act we need to ask:  do we put all people responsible for a death in prison for life or let them go after serving a minimum sentence.  Death is death and the teenager who recklessly hits a pedestrian and kills them would be considered just as guilty as the most heinous serial killer imaginable.  Now, someone draw the line for me because I can't do it.

[RubySlippers]

There are concerns on another front speech others may find offensive and that made illegal. Even now I street preach and have issues with the police and others even though I obey every law. Don't ;oiter, stay on public property, no megaphones, didn't ask for money or hand out anything and the like. The last time the police said as a arguement they don't want to hear you preach. I said ,logically, the First Amendment protects my right to practice and free speech its not a matter they or the police like it or not.

I did leave but got the officers badge number and filed a general complaint against the police department for harassment of the rights of free speech.

At some point people have to get it this is a free nation and people like me are afraid that ,duh, you will go after people like me its happening now. Its the slippery slope if you say saying the "N" word and hitting a black person nudges the crim up hard to a big crime. Then when I preach that you go to any church and are not in the keeping of the teachings of Jesus ,my real message, could they nail me for hate crimes against a Catholic for speaking my beliefs and up the crime level?

[Xenophile]

If you mix your religious message with downright hateful shouting, then yes, that preaching should be warrant for a investigation.

[Oniya]

I saw a sign on one of the local churches yesterday that really sums things up:

God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts.

[RubySlippers]

I don't mymessage is simple: you don't need denominations or churches so leave (insert faith) and stop supporting the system that wastes money and resources better used to directly give to the poor. And oddly ministers should go get real jobs to support themselves. Its not exactly popular with the local churches and I preach in front of one church each Sunday and outside the local Morning Market (weather permitting).

But why are my rights being violated because I speak and I obey the laws and some priest or minister find its something they don't want near their church?

What starts with one thing hate thoughts can then go to hate speech being illegal, that is a concern of mine. If I preached that and burned the church down its then a crime ,arson, why should why I did it matter or be worth a harsher sentence? (not in my plans just saying it)

[Avis habilis]

If I preached that and burned the church down its then a crime ,arson, why should why I did it matter or be worth a harsher sentence? (not in my plans just saying it)

Hate crime laws have exactly nothing to do with punishing motivation. They're meant to punish the additional crime of committing an act that terrorizes an entire group.

[Kip]

Hate crime laws have exactly nothing to do with punishing motivation. They're meant to punish the additional crime of committing an act that terrorizes an entire group.

There is a very important point there - a random murder or bashing concerns everyone....

But, using a local example...  four guys wearing motorcycle helmts and wielding baseball bats driving into the gay and lesbian district and bashing someone randomly based on their sexual orientation (or presumed) and doing this anonymously over a few weeks before being caught put fear into a specific subset of the population and had further impacts than the one random bashing. 

It is technically the same act but the consequences are vastly different.

[kylie]

It is technically the same act but the consequences are vastly different.

To prosecute it as a hate crime, I understand they would look for some evidence of particular orientation-related spite.  Like if the attackers are screaming slurs about an identity while they do it.  Or perhaps they were sitting around the bar an hour before going on about how lesbians should be punished, etc.  So very technically...  I think it wouldn't be the same as far as the law is concerned. 

         The physical attack itself (say, the wielding of the weapon) might appear the same, but the context is different than in a "random" attack that just happened to strike lesbians.  Much as the context may different in determining murder versus manslaughter, harassment versus libel, attack versus accident or self-defense.  My point being, there are specific identity-related actions that can be pointed to in an investigation.

          Agreed that the criteria for prosecution is that it's shown to involve targeting based on identity, and that the consequences for the targeted population are markedly different than a random attack.

[Beguile's Mistress]

In many cases a hate-crime charge is not made until an investigation has been conducted.  Using the lesbian scenario referenced above the actor would attack a woman and be arrested and charged with assault.  After investigating the crime the actor could be charged under hate-crime laws if evidence of bias against lesbians was found and the woman attacked were a lesbian, but proof would have to exist that the actor knew the woman was a lesbian.  It might even be required that the actor have previous contact with the woman that involved his attitude toward her sexuality.

Many hate crimes are hard to prove and a thorough investigation is usually carried out before the charges are filed.  Also, in cases where the evidence is strong enough to guarantee a guilty verdict and the evidence for a hate crime is weak, the hate crime charges may be withheld or withdrawn in favor of prosecuting the criminal charges.

[ThePrince]

Does the law criminalize their speech? Does it criminalize their thought? Does it stop them from peacefully demonstrating their beliefs?

If so then the law needs to be changed, if not the law is fine.

[Mnemaxa]

The core issue that seems to be takign place, is that because the laws as presented do not allow the religious minority that has filed suit to act as they wish without concern for their actions, they believe it is an affront to their belief system. 

I could be reading that wrong, but since the laws protect them and their religious community from those who would inflict hate crimes upon them, i think it is a silly reaction.

[kylie]

After investigating the crime the actor could be charged under hate-crime laws if evidence of bias against lesbians was found and the woman attacked were a lesbian, but proof would have to exist that the actor knew the woman was a lesbian. 

There is no requirement that the victim be proven to be a lesbian, or a member of whatever targeted group is in question.  Thankfully, I would say, because demanding that could open a very intrusive and intractable sort of discussion.  ( Code below from search on http://thomas.loc.gov ) 

SEC. 3.  Definition of hate crime.
In this Act—
(1) the term “crime of violence” has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term “hate crime” has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note)...

280003 (a) In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

[Callie Del Noire]

These people need to understand that the world doesn't follow them. Their entitled to their beliefs... but it has been a long time since not going to Church has been a demonizing event. It seems every other month some priest or the Pope is claiming that the world is losing its way. Thats not the case at all... their losing us. The world does not NEED Christianity to function in a morally rich way. The sooner they stop whining like spoilt children, the sooner we'll outgrow the need for hate crime laws in the first place.

I think I like that outlook. Particularly after the last 10 years in the US. My mom pointed out a report in Ireland dealing with the Catholic Church's actions over the last fifty odd years. Scarey stuff.

[Farmboy]

          280003 (a) In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

There you have it. The law protects Christians, too. If the Christian or his property is targeted simply because of their religious belief, it is a hate crime under this wording.

Therefore, they have no case.

[RubySlippers]

My pragmatic libertarianist leanings are offended generally by adding criminal charges due to motivation even if that leads to gross violence. Murder is murder, if the idiot scum doing it is a racist doing that to a black man or woman then its still illegal on its own - murder. Why murder plus a Federal charge making it a Federal case over state laws for murder? If one wants to stop organized attacks by groups then use the laws there such as racketeering or terrorist related charges. In a case of one idiot then arrest them and take the motivation into consideration but not an added charge, most judges would add to the charges suitably.

There are cases I can get it killing an officer of the law since that shows a criminal is very dangerous and doesn't care about the consequences, will kill anyone. But that is not a hate crime its killing an official of the law.

But there is an issue laws like this in other nations have led to hate speech being illegal and a crime. I recall a case in a nation online where a minister was arrested for street preaching against gays and was arrested for "intolerant" hate speech. One could lead to the other in the US all it takes it a law and sympathetic courts. This was also a European Nation just don't remember which one.

[DarklingAlice]

But there is an issue laws like this in other nations have led to hate speech being illegal and a crime. I recall a case in a nation online where a minister was arrested for street preaching against gays and was arrested for "intolerant" hate speech. One could lead to the other in the US all it takes it a law and sympathetic courts. This was also a European Nation just don't remember which one.

I would be interested to have an actual citation of this event rather than just hearsay. Also, please note that a number of nations do not guarantee freedom of speech, making it fairly unremarkable that a law be passed against hate speech. Laws against hate crimes are not laws against hate speech, and for a United States hate crimes law to impinge hate speech their would have to be constitutional revision and an extreme failure at multiple levels of the court.

[RubySlippers]

It would not take much though that is the sad thing. If they claimed hate speech leads to a chance to hate crime and get one precedent that holds up through the Supreme Court - bammo!

[Jude]

Look at it this way.  Under hate crime legislation:
Commit a murder = Face punishment x
Commit a murder + say something homophobic = Face Punishment x + Punishment y

How can you not say that free speech is being punished by that law?  Maybe not entirely on its own, but it's definitely being discouraged.

[kylie]

          The text of the legislation includes this.  (3) and (4) in particular were mentioned in the article cited by the OP.  (Bold is mine.) 

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

      For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

            (1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

            (2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

            (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

           (4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

In short, the intent is as Valerian said:  "For there to be a hate crime, there must first be a crime."

          The punishment is not for simply saying something hateful.  (We might go on elsewhere about just what kind of society still allows the KKK to march down Main Street.)  The punishment is for going out and acting upon it in a criminal way when the targeting is based upon a hatred against historically vulnerable groups. 

          Now, this is the extent of my stretching the (better) implications:  If the powers that be happen to observe that organizations with lots of hate speech are actually often associated with hate crimes, then maybe it would make sense for them to patrol and probe a little more often around a few more radical rightist hangouts.  I don't deny that law enforcement sometimes focus more where they can get easy career points making politically-backed arrests.  I would hope they have the foresight to balance with priorities on other things, such as domestic terrorism which may or may not have some relationship with organizations that regularly host some hate speech.  As long as they keep watch based on some demonstrated pattern of connection to crime, and don't wiretap illegally or jump with no evidence.

          In actuality, though, the police and sometimes the feds have still been jumping on gays with little to no evidence (or seeking to inflate the most harmless of crimes into scandals) from the 1950's on through very recent years.  So, I'd be a little surprised if they paid as much attention to hate speech.  They might gradually shift as their career incentives change with the law, but I doubt so many can change their approach to vulnerable minorities very easily.  I can see how Ruby might be a little concerned that smaller, less conventional churches could receive a little more police scrutiny or pressure.  With regard to the OP though, I don't think the larger, more organized Christian ones would generally be subject to that.  The police just don't tend to play "what if" so often with people who have more resources and historical power.

[Beguile's Mistress]

          There is no requirement that the victim be proven to be a lesbian, or a member of whatever targeted group is in question.  Thankfully, I would say, because demanding that could open a very intrusive and intractable sort of discussion.  ( Code below from search on http://thomas.loc.gov ) 

Thank you for that correction.  However, that point doesn't change the fact that hate crimes are not charged indiscriminately.  Adequate proof to convict is needed.

[DarklingAlice]

It would not take much though that is the sad thing. If they claimed hate speech leads to a chance to hate crime and get one precedent that holds up through the Supreme Court - bammo!

I think you have a quite skewed and alarmist view of the court system. Not only would such an absurd case have to work its way through many lower courts successfully appealed at every level, the Supreme Court would also have to agree to hear the case (which is certainly not a guarantee), and then they would have to return an argument that could logically conclude that there is an interpretation of: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." that allows for the abridgement of free speech. It is not easy to get a case to the Supreme Court, and even if you did the Supreme Court are not lawmakers with the power to change that which is explicit in the constitution.

Look at it this way.  Under hate crime legislation:
Commit a murder = Face punishment x
Commit a murder + say something homophobic = Face Punishment x + Punishment y

How can you not say that free speech is being punished by that law?  Maybe not entirely on its own, but it's definitely being discouraged.

This has nothing to do with what you say. I can stand on the street corner and decry gays and religions all day and it is not a crime. This has to do with the motive for and effect of the murder. Just like a self-defence plea or a "crime of passion" plea can reduce the punishment, a charge of a hate crime can increase it (just as malice aforethought can up the degree of murder). The hate crime is meant to cause fear within a specific community. As such it is a crime against all members of that community, not just the individual. It seems reasonable that something be added to the base charge for the extra victims. Do you also take issue with penalties under law for terrorism, criminal intimidation, or harassment?

[Secretwriter]

I honestly think that if people would pay more attention to what is or isn't going on in their own bedroom, they'd be too worn out to worry about everyone else's.  :-)

But in today's society, those performing the hate crimes, hate speech, and other hateful things are spending way too much energy on stupid bullshit when they could be working to better the environment, protect abused women and children, putting in time by making people's days brighter with smiles instead of sitting there with narrowed eyes and judgmental scowls, contemplating other people's sins.  They could start by looking at their own when they're chugging their Jack Daniels and watching porn and then proclaiming that they're devout. They need to start worrying about what they're doing right or wrong, more on what could be improved upon versus sitting there feeling self-righteous.

But that's just me.

[Serephino]

Also, one must remember that Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion do have limits.  Every single right granted to American citizens only extends to the point of infringing on another's rights.

For instance; you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.  Why?  Because most likely the crowd will panic and rush to the exits.  Someone could get hurt or trampled.  One is free to be a Satanist, but if you do a ritual human sacrifice it's still murder. 

Basically, the point I'm getting at here is that you can believe homosexuals are sinners and are going to hell if you really feel that way, but just because it's a religious belief it doesn't make it okay to harass, intimidate, assault, or murder them because of it.  I hope we can at least agree on that.

Personally, I just think Christians love to bitch and whine.  It gets them attention, although it really only makes them look like idiots.  Hell, a church shouldn't be preaching hate anyway. 

[ReijiTabibito]

Okay, after looking over all this, here are my thoughts...

Hate Crime Laws:  To a degree, HCLs not only discourage violent crimes, but also prevent people from becoming serial criminals.  It's common knowledge in the law enforcement community that serial killers and rapists tend to fixate upon a given subset of persons - and then commit those crimes against that subset.  So, theoretically, a serial rapist could be charge with a hate crime on top of his others.  Furthermore, HCLs punish racism - something that Christians should be on board with, since it says in the Bible that all peoples are equal.  However, as others have mentioned, it is possible to charge people with a hate crime wrongfully.

Take this example: a white crack addict beats up a black person and steals his wallet because he needs a fix.  Sounds simple enough - until a police search turns up virulent anti-black literature in his place of residence.  Do you charge him with a hate crime, or no?

To me, it would depend upon a pattern of behavior.  If you look at his rap sheet and find, hey, he only beats up black people when he's looking for crack money, then hell yes slap him with a hate crime.  If he's an equal opportunity offender, however, charging him with a hate crime is a violation of his freedom to believe what he wants.

In short, the hate crime statue should be reserved for serial offenders, and not every Tom, Dick, and Harry that winds up in court.

Christianity complaining about this:  The problem with Christianity, like *every* religion, is that there are always crazy fundamentalist whackjobs who complain about life choices that people make, from their sexual orientation to which schools people send their kids to.  And unfortunately, this minority of people is *always* the loudest, preaching damnation and hellfire when they should be preaching repentance and acceptance. 

Take the Biblical example of Paul the Apostle: before his conversion, he was a *virulent* hater of the Christian faith, and actively sought to make the lives of Christians *everywhere* miserable.  All of a sudden, he gets turned around because of his conversion, and now is seeking to join the early Christian church.  Now, I wasn't there, but I'm sure that at least *some* people raised eyebrows over the fact that Paul claimed to be converted.  But, what did they do?  They accepted him; they took his repentance as truth - and *now* he's perhaps one of the most respected figures in Christianity.

Furthermore, there is a saying: "Anyone who claims to have moral superiority...doesn't."  If you claim to be a better person than someone else, *just* because of your religion, then that's wrong.  The Book of James tells us that if we have faith - *true* faith - then there will be evidence of it, evidence done in the way of good doing, good thinking, and good living.  And that should be *regardless* of where you come from, who your father was, and what you do. 

I heard a priest say this once: "True Christians come with a discloser - no person shall, on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or lifestyle, be denied charity."  Basically, if you are a Christian, then you should help people who need helping - no matter *how* different they might be from you.

That's just my thoughts on it.

[Brandon]

I think it just comes down to some christians need to be more like Christ himself.

Hate crime laws themselves, well I think theyre a bunch of bull. The idea was to create laws that punish criminal actions based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc but in practice I dont see them doing much except further segregating groups from each other.