Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Abuse of the law
:This is not the article to stick on objections or quibbles about immutablity of "orientation". There's another article about that (or should be): [[sexual orientation]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:This is not the article to stick on objections or quibbles about immutablity of "orientation". There's another article about that (or should be): [[sexual orientation]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
== Abuse of the law ==
Matt McReynolds, a staff attorney for Pacific Justice, said:
:It's gotten to the point even pure speech is being criminalized, with no actions or violence," he said.
:"That's where hate crimes legislation inevitably has led in other Western societies," McReynolds said. His organization has worked on a number of such cases already involving California's own version of a "hate crimes" plan.
:"The law of unintended consequences – or perhaps intended consequences cleverly disguised – is starkly illustrated by the ongoing federal case Harper v. Poway Unified School District," he wrote in a summary of the problems. "In Harper, a student responded to the annual pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence,' which was being heavily promoted on his high school campus, by wearing a T-shirt which expressed his religious viewpoint that homosexuality was 'shameful.'
:"Instead of allowing a differing viewpoint, school officials pulled aside Harper, demanding that he change his expression or face suspension. An assistant principal even suggested to Harper that he needed to leave his faith in the car while at school, in order not to offend homosexual students," according to McReynolds.
:"Such a result clearly undermines basic Constitutional protections," including free expression and religion, he noted. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57583
No one is saying that they are ''in favor'' of hate crimes. If you assault someone ''because'' they are Christian or homosexual, it's a [[hate crime]].
Their objection is to suppressing pure speech. If I say, "God prohibits homosexual behavior", no one should say I'm breaking the law; rather, they should defend to the death my right to say this! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:48, 21 September 2007 (EDT)