Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
752
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: − − Additionally, some have argued that hate crimes should be applied in extreme cases, but that existing legislation is far too broad. For instance, they argue that merely telling a homosexual that he will go to [[hell]] if he does not repent should not be a "hate crime", but that actually killing that person (which in the opinion of the murderer, would send them to hell) should be classified as a "hate crime". This is generally seen as a more moderately conservative to centrist view on the issue. + +
→Free speech and the Homosexual Agenda: moving this to where it makes more sense
A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:
A ladder to legislate social acceptance and promotion of a lifestyle would be as follows:
* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Bottom Rung:''' hate crime legislation to recognize and accept the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Middle Rung:''' anti-discrimination legislation to favor and promote the lifestyle.
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle. [citation needed]
* '''Top Rung:''' [[affirmative action]] to fully promote the lifestyle. [citation needed]
Additionally, some have argued that hate crimes should be applied in extreme cases, but that existing legislation is far too broad. For instance, they argue that merely telling a homosexual that he will go to [[hell]] if he does not repent should not be a "hate crime", but that actually killing that person (which in the opinion of the murderer, would send them to hell) should be classified as a "hate crime". This is generally seen as a more moderately conservative to centrist view on the issue.
===Legislative history===
===Legislative history===