Evangelical activists want LGBT people excluded from anti-lynching bill

[Dragonlady]

Shouldn't it be against the law to lynch anyone, not just protected groups/classes?

Is it to do with making it a federal hate crime ? I am not an expert in your colonial laws. Anyway these fake christians seem to want to single out Gays as ok to lynch. Black folks must be chuffed apart from Gay black folks I guess.

You are not an expert yet you opine frequently? How is the caliphate?

View attachment 239367

You're not an American yet you're attacking a Brit. Lying Russian hacks.

 

[deanrd]

Let's post what we know:

Republicans applauded when a baker refused to serve a gay customer.

Republican preachers post sermons on Youtube calling for death to gays.

Republicans don't believe gays should have the same rights as hetros.

Republicans on the USMB use gay slurs.

And yet, many Republicans insist the GOP is not the homophobe party.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...........then...........

 

[Polishprince]

Let's post what we know:

Republicans applauded when a baker refused to serve a gay customer.

Republican preachers post sermons on Youtube calling for death to gays.

Republicans don't believe gays should have the same rights as hetros.

Republicans on the USMB use gay slurs.

And yet, many Republicans insist the GOP is not the homophobe party.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...........then...........

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.

As far as businesses "discriminating" against homosexuals, its impossible. Homosexuals look the same as anyone else. If someone is walking down the street, or comes into a store, there is no way to know they are taking it up the ass unless they tell you. The problem is that a lot of homosexuals somehow feel compelled to tell others about it. Truthfully, gays who tell people of their sexuality on a "need to know" basis only never have to fear being discriminated against.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Shouldn't it be against the law to lynch anyone, not just protected groups/classes?

Is it to do with making it a federal hate crime ? I am not an expert in your colonial laws. Anyway these fake christians seem to want to single out Gays as ok to lynch. Black folks must be chuffed apart from Gay black folks I guess.

You are not an expert yet you opine frequently? How is the caliphate?

View attachment 239367

You're not an American yet you're attacking a Brit. Lying Russian hacks.

I am Most Certainly American.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lynchings are already against state law in all 50 states. Why is this a matter for the Federal DOJ to concern themselves with?

Its also already illegal on places of federal jurisdiction.

Congress needs to get to work on the Wall, not wasting their time on this.

BTW, I've never heard of homosexuals being lynched.

Mathew Shepherd - fool, and many others


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Shepherd was murdered, but he wasn't lynched. Perhaps you don't know what a lynching is?

Merriam Webster defines it for us.

Definition of lynch. transitive verb. : to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission The accused killer was lynched by an angry mob.


Further , the law in Wyoming was sufficient to deal with those convicted of Shepherd's death. A federal statute is unnecessary

Oh give me a ******* break " "lynching" refers to any extra judicial killing of a person. Are you really that ******* obtuse?

So by your definition, Martin Luther King was lynched as was Trayvon Martin, The Notorious Big, and the Lindbergh baby.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that I was dealing with such a dolt who is given to such ridged, concrete thought processes . We are talking about bias crimes here. So no, NOT Lindberg!

 

[Silhouette]

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.
.

How were they given special rights? By what Constitutional authority do just some deviant sex addicts gain the 14th’s protections while other deviant sex addicts do not? And, if this isn’t possible, how is Obergefell legal?

 

[Polishprince]

Lynchings are already against state law in all 50 states. Why is this a matter for the Federal DOJ to concern themselves with?

Its also already illegal on places of federal jurisdiction.

Congress needs to get to work on the Wall, not wasting their time on this.

BTW, I've never heard of homosexuals being lynched.

Mathew Shepherd - fool, and many others


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Shepherd was murdered, but he wasn't lynched. Perhaps you don't know what a lynching is?

Merriam Webster defines it for us.

Definition of lynch. transitive verb. : to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission The accused killer was lynched by an angry mob.


Further , the law in Wyoming was sufficient to deal with those convicted of Shepherd's death. A federal statute is unnecessary

Oh give me a ******* break " "lynching" refers to any extra judicial killing of a person. Are you really that ******* obtuse?

So by your definition, Martin Luther King was lynched as was Trayvon Martin, The Notorious Big, and the Lindbergh baby.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that I was dealing with such a dolt who is given to such ridged, concrete thought processes . We are talking about bias crimes here. So no, NOT Lindberg!

The word "lynch" has a meaning, and no, it is not synonymous with "bias crime". Clinton Eastwood was lynched in Hang Em High- but it wasn't a hate crime. Drifters aren't a recognized political identity group. Didn't change the fact it was a lynching.

 

[Lysistrata]

Let's post what we know:

Republicans applauded when a baker refused to serve a gay customer.

Republican preachers post sermons on Youtube calling for death to gays.

Republicans don't believe gays should have the same rights as hetros.

Republicans on the USMB use gay slurs.

And yet, many Republicans insist the GOP is not the homophobe party.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...........then...........

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.

As far as businesses "discriminating" against homosexuals, its impossible. Homosexuals look the same as anyone else. If someone is walking down the street, or comes into a store, there is no way to know they are taking it up the ass unless they tell you. The problem is that a lot of homosexuals somehow feel compelled to tell others about it. Truthfully, gays who tell people of their sexuality on a "need to know" basis only never have to fear being discriminated against.

When did marriage become a "special right"? If you are married and you appear in public together, we all assume that you are f*cking. Do you feel compelled to tell others about it? How do you do this. You have rings. We all know.Take the Duggars. With all of those kids, we know that they are f*cking. There is no "problem" with sex.

 

[Polishprince]

Let's post what we know:

Republicans applauded when a baker refused to serve a gay customer.

Republican preachers post sermons on Youtube calling for death to gays.

Republicans don't believe gays should have the same rights as hetros.

Republicans on the USMB use gay slurs.

And yet, many Republicans insist the GOP is not the homophobe party.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...........then...........

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.

As far as businesses "discriminating" against homosexuals, its impossible. Homosexuals look the same as anyone else. If someone is walking down the street, or comes into a store, there is no way to know they are taking it up the ass unless they tell you. The problem is that a lot of homosexuals somehow feel compelled to tell others about it. Truthfully, gays who tell people of their sexuality on a "need to know" basis only never have to fear being discriminated against.

When did marriage become a "special right"? If you are married and you appear in public together, we all assume that you are f*cking. Do you feel compelled to tell others about it? How do you do this. You have rings. We all know.Take the Duggars. With all of those kids, we know that they are f*cking. There is no "problem" with sex.

I'm not talking about marriage at all. Marriage is between a man and a broad. I'm talking about Gay Marriage, which is a new societal institution that no one ever heard of when I was a kid- a recent invention and a result of societal de-evolutiion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let's post what we know:

Republicans applauded when a baker refused to serve a gay customer.

Republican preachers post sermons on Youtube calling for death to gays.

Republicans don't believe gays should have the same rights as hetros.

Republicans on the USMB use gay slurs.

And yet, many Republicans insist the GOP is not the homophobe party.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...........then...........

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.

As far as businesses "discriminating" against homosexuals, its impossible. Homosexuals look the same as anyone else. If someone is walking down the street, or comes into a store, there is no way to know they are taking it up the ass unless they tell you. The problem is that a lot of homosexuals somehow feel compelled to tell others about it. Truthfully, gays who tell people of their sexuality on a "need to know" basis only never have to fear being discriminated against.

When did marriage become a "special right"? If you are married and you appear in public together, we all assume that you are f*cking. Do you feel compelled to tell others about it? How do you do this. You have rings. We all know.Take the Duggars. With all of those kids, we know that they are f*cking. There is no "problem" with sex.

I'm not talking about marriage at all. Marriage is between a man and a broad. I'm talking about Gay Marriage, which is a new societal institution that no one ever heard of when I was a kid- a recent invention and a result of societal de-evolutiion.

Interracial marriage and the idea that women could own property independently were also new social constructs at one time . Society is very much evolving. You're just not keeping up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Mathew Shepherd - fool, and many others


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Shepherd was murdered, but he wasn't lynched. Perhaps you don't know what a lynching is?

Merriam Webster defines it for us.

Definition of lynch. transitive verb. : to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission The accused killer was lynched by an angry mob.


Further , the law in Wyoming was sufficient to deal with those convicted of Shepherd's death. A federal statute is unnecessary

Oh give me a ******* break " "lynching" refers to any extra judicial killing of a person. Are you really that ******* obtuse?

So by your definition, Martin Luther King was lynched as was Trayvon Martin, The Notorious Big, and the Lindbergh baby.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that I was dealing with such a dolt who is given to such ridged, concrete thought processes . We are talking about bias crimes here. So no, NOT Lindberg!

The word "lynch" has a meaning, and no, it is not synonymous with "bias crime". Clinton Eastwood was lynched in Hang Em High- but it wasn't a hate crime. Drifters aren't a recognized political identity group. Didn't change the fact it was a lynching.

• Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate a group. It is an extreme form of informal group social control such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering, and often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation. It is to be considered an act of terrorism and punishable by law. Instances of lynchings an

See more on en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.
.

How were they given special rights? By what Constitutional authority do just some deviant sex addicts gain the 14th’s protections while other deviant sex addicts do not? And, if this isn’t possible, how is Obergefell legal?

The law does not concern itself with what a sex obsessed bigot considers perverted. The issue is what people are allowed to do, or not do based on whether or not there is a compelling government interest-or a least a rational basis for prohibiting it.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Anti-lynching laws was a thing because states either did not charge or were reluctant to vigorously prosecute the defendants -- so often times, the DOJ had to take up the case.

It is mostly symbolic now, as to acknowledge the evils of the recent past and not ever go back. However as symbolic as that law may be; so is the attempt of evangelicals to strip that protection from one particular group -- you didn't see evangelicals asking for that protection to be stripped from Jewish or Black people...why?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Let's be real: the whole Justice for Victims of Lynching Act is nothing more than feel good nonsense. It's redundant and silly.

It really is but that's how hate laws are...taking something that is already expressly illegal and tacking on the hate crime
designation in order to, at some future point, make crimes of people's thoughts, words and opinions.

I don't want to seem paranoid and I'm not a fan of hate but when one looks at sad old dysfunctional England, where someone can be charged with a hate crime just for holding an opinion that someone can claim offends them, it doesn't seem so paranoid after all.

 

[Silhouette]

It really is but that's how hate laws are...taking something that is already expressly illegal and tacking on the hate crime
designation in order to, at some future point, make crimes of people's thoughts, words and opinions.

I don't want to seem paranoid and I'm not a fan of hate but when one looks at sad old dysfunctional England, where someone can be charged with a hate crime just for holding an opinion that someone can claim offends them, it doesn't seem so paranoid after all.

True. Being a witch-accused was a "hate crime" because witchcraft hated God. So you were burned for your beliefs. That you allegedly had...because someone's daughter got pregnant and naturally because she was "pure", witchcraft had to be involved. lol

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

True. Being a witch-accused was a "hate crime" because witchcraft hated God. So you were burned for your beliefs. That you allegedly had...because someone's daughter got pregnant and naturally because she was "pure", witchcraft had to be involved. lol

So on point! So while I'm not a big fan of the Evangelicals, that group has a good point about hate crimes in principle.

 

[Silhouette]

The law does not concern itself with what a sex obsessed bigot considers perverted. The issue is what people are allowed to do, or not do based on whether or not there is a compelling government interest-or a least a rational basis for prohibiting it.

The rational basis for prohibiting gay marriage is at least twofold. 1. Because polygamists & incest couples still can’t marry: and the 14th doesn’t exclude or create arbitrarily abbreviated list of deviant sex behaviors & 2. Childrens’ benefit from marriage contracts has always been both vital (nonsubstitutable) mother & father. And that Obergefell painted their benefits of a marriage contract of primary concern. And that Obergefell not only did not invite separate representation of children to arguments, the Court went out of its way to deny inclusion of amicus briefs from adult children raised in these experimental fatherless/motherless homes because their briefs did not shine favorably on gay marriage.

No doubt Ginsburg had plenty to do with that last fact because she’s already announced to the press weeks before the Hearing that she believed America was ready for gay marriage. In other words she’d already decided on her own to overrule state powers avered 56 times in Windsor 2013 & declare like a monarch that her opinion was already the law of the land. Children weighing in to the contrary would’ve detracted from her/their goal. So the amicus briefs (the voices of kids) that detracted from that bias could not be allowed as part of proceedings. That fact is also rational means for denying gay marriage. Obergefell was illegally ruled upon.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The law does not concern itself with what a sex obsessed bigot considers perverted. The issue is what people are allowed to do, or not do based on whether or not there is a compelling government interest-or a least a rational basis for prohibiting it.

The rational basis for prohibiting gay marriage is at least twofold. 1. Because polygamists & incest couples still can’t marry: and the 14th doesn’t exclude or create arbitrarily abbreviated list of deviant sex behaviors & 2. Childrens’ benefit from marriage contracts has always been both vital (nonsubstitutable) mother & father. And that Obergefell painted their benefits of a marriage contract of primary concern. And that Obergefell not only did not invite separate representation of children to arguments, the Court went out of its way to deny inclusion of amicus briefs from adult children raised in these experimental fatherless/motherless homes because their briefs did not shine favorably on gay marriage.

No doubt Ginsburg had plenty to do with that last fact because she’s already announced to the press weeks before the Hearing that she believed America was ready for gay marriage. In other words she’d already decided on her own to overrule state powers avered 56 times in Windsor 2013 & declare like a monarch that her opinion was already the law of the land. Children weighing in to the contrary would’ve detracted from her/their goal. So the amicus briefs (the voices of kids) that detracted from that bias could not be allowed as part of proceedings. That fact is also rational means for denying gay marriage. Obergefell was illegally ruled upon.

Same debunked hogwash, different day. Let me ask you something. Given the fact that there are still a fair number of living hysterical loons like you out there , how is it that no body- in the years since Obergefell- has brought a new case based on these bizarre legal theories to try to overturn it?

 

[Lysistrata]

Let's post what we know:

Republicans applauded when a baker refused to serve a gay customer.

Republican preachers post sermons on Youtube calling for death to gays.

Republicans don't believe gays should have the same rights as hetros.

Republicans on the USMB use gay slurs.

And yet, many Republicans insist the GOP is not the homophobe party.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...........then...........

The real story is this, Dean. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against at all. They have been recently granted Special Rights,including the new social institution of Gay Marriage.

As far as businesses "discriminating" against homosexuals, its impossible. Homosexuals look the same as anyone else. If someone is walking down the street, or comes into a store, there is no way to know they are taking it up the ass unless they tell you. The problem is that a lot of homosexuals somehow feel compelled to tell others about it. Truthfully, gays who tell people of their sexuality on a "need to know" basis only never have to fear being discriminated against.

When did marriage become a "special right"? If you are married and you appear in public together, we all assume that you are f*cking. Do you feel compelled to tell others about it? How do you do this. You have rings. We all know.Take the Duggars. With all of those kids, we know that they are f*cking. There is no "problem" with sex.

I'm not talking about marriage at all. Marriage is between a man and a broad. I'm talking about Gay Marriage, which is a new societal institution that no one ever heard of when I was a kid- a recent invention and a result of societal de-evolutiion.

So says you.What is your problem with someone else getting married? How has it affected your life? Marriage means that the two people have legal rights with respect to each other. It means that if you die, your property goes to the person you want it to go to.

Remember that kid who got kicked out of his in Florida by his monkey parents because he is gay. He is now a student at Georgetown. If he had property and he died, without marriage, his monkey parents would get this property even though they treated him like shit.

 

[Silhouette]

The law does not concern itself with what a sex obsessed bigot considers perverted. The issue is what people are allowed to do, or not do based on whether or not there is a compelling government interest-or a least a rational basis for prohibiting it.

The rational basis for prohibiting gay marriage is at least twofold. 1. Because polygamists & incest couples still can’t marry: and the 14th doesn’t exclude or create arbitrarily abbreviated list of deviant sex behaviors & 2. Childrens’ benefit from marriage contracts has always been both vital (nonsubstitutable) mother & father. And that Obergefell painted their benefits of a marriage contract of primary concern. And that Obergefell not only did not invite separate representation of children to arguments, the Court went out of its way to deny inclusion of amicus briefs from adult children raised in these experimental fatherless/motherless homes because their briefs did not shine favorably on gay marriage.

No doubt Ginsburg had plenty to do with that last fact because she’s already announced to the press weeks before the Hearing that she believed America was ready for gay marriage. In other words she’d already decided on her own to overrule state powers avered 56 times in Windsor 2013 & declare like a monarch that her opinion was already the law of the land. Children weighing in to the contrary would’ve detracted from her/their goal. So the amicus briefs (the voices of kids) that detracted from that bias could not be allowed as part of proceedings. That fact is also rational means for denying gay marriage. Obergefell was illegally ruled upon.

Same debunked hogwash, different day. Let me ask you something. Given the fact that there are still a fair number of living hysterical loons like you out there , how is it that no body- in the years since Obergefell- has brought a new case based on these bizarre legal theories to try to overturn it?

Following the Constitution is not a bizarre legal theory.