Posted on 06/12/2015 8:36:23 PM PDT by DeweyCA
Very good clarification. I agree. And the author writes, “Democrats no longer have any incentive to seek anything but constant, zero-sum conflict on these issues.”
We need to defend the First and Second Amendments like many here at Free Republic understand.
So right you are about that. I do believe it is to get rid of Christianity and ruin the country and many follow them believing in their bunk rhetoric.
Need to be exposed, stopped and stomped out.
Some conservatives instinctively dislike “hate crimes” laws for two related reasons. First, they risk creating “thought crimes” that punish motive, rather than punishing the same violent act the same way. I used to be more sympathetic to this view pre-9/11, but the reality is that hate crimes are disproportionately harmful for exactly the same reason terrorism is: targeting strangers for violence out of the blue over an animus or a cause sends a message of terror to anyone who could envision the same thing happening to them.No, there is no “better” form of hate crime law. All the criticisms are valid.
The “thought crime” aspect can be resolved by the simple expedient of writing such laws to punish, not “hate” as a motive, but rather crimes whose objective circumstances look to a reasonable observer like a hate crime. After all, the harm caused by a gay-bashing attack is done by the public act of, say, yelling slurs while jumping a guy outside a gay bar, not by the private act of what the attacker may have read in books or on the Internet.
Second, hate-crimes laws are criticized for creating unequal “protected classes” of crime victims. But like the thought-crimes problem, this is mainly the fault of poor drafting of such laws (which encourages their uneven application) rather than an inherent flaw. Rather than enumerate a series of exclusive categories, it’s entirely proper to cover all forms of hate crime that appear to an objective observer to have resulted from selecting a victim based on some observable or perceived characteristic rather than due to financial or sexual motives, escalation of a pre-existing or personal conflict, etc. …
I think the author is incredibly naive if he thinks the homosexualists will accept compromise at this point. They mean to crush any and all opposition.
I also disagree vehemently with the concept that employers should not be free to hire (or not hire) whoever the want. A company is represented by its employees, and people shouldn’t have to hire a flamboyant homosexual any more than they should have to hire anyone else who doesn’t fit the image that business wants to portray.
I have often thought of opening a business and could do so, but government ensures I never will.
Belief in God is neither good or evil. Satan believes in God, too. It’s what you do with that belief that matters.
>> They hate Christianity. That’s just the way they are.
Faulty premise.
The Left is driving the hatred for Christianity. Homosexuality is just one of its many tools.
The author should give greater consideration to those willing to endure his soliloquy.
(Sorry, I couldn't let that headline stand)
Oh I guess that never occurred to me before. Why is it that people say stuff like this.
Can a cancer coexist with the host it invades?
>>We need to defend the First and Second Amendments
The First amendment does not exist within corporate/collective America.
This is a fact the opposition is exploiting with great success. They will deprive anyone who disagrees with them of their livelihood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.