Replies

"As much as the homosexual activists like to pretend that sexual orientated bias is as much a crime as those based upon race or gender, the reality is that you can look at a person and tell if they're black or white, male or female. You can't generally tell someone's sexual orientation - it is a preference, just as much as someone's religion is, and absolutely does not rise to the same level of protection."

Not sure I follow your logic. Putting the behavior of homersexuality in the same category of religion for protection makes no sense. Religion is very protected in the constitution, so far the behavior of homersexuals is not mentioned there although a great many liberals see it there.

Religious practice is protected under the constitution, religious belief is not. You can't be prevented (without huge compelling reasons not to) from being able to practice your religion, but there's nothing in the constitution that requires anyone else to acknowledge, recognize, tally, etc your beliefs.

Hate crime laws go beyond the constitutionally protected arena of religious practice into the realm of acknowledging someone's religious belief. In many states, it is lumped in with homosexual belief as well. Beliefs are not constitutionally protected. To extend protections to beliefs erodes someone's freedom of speech. If I call a Catholic a moron, I've committed a hate crime, just as if I call a homosexual a wacko.

Beyond, it goes into a sketchy realm of reading someone's mind, rather than being based upon intent. These laws assign a different punishment for effectively the same crime. If I hit you because you're a Jew (or because I believe you to be one, because honestly, who can really prove someone's beliefs?) I'll get more jail time than if I hit you because you just happened to walk by.

I'm absolutely sure that there is no evidence of intent by the framers of the constitution to extend such rights, especially since religious debate was such an active and organic segment of everyday living.