[Telepathic Intruder]

“Homophobic slurs”. The battery was wrong, the speech was not. I’m against hate crime laws because they impose thought crimes on top of actual crimes.

[heterosupremacist]

Telepathic Intruder wrote:

“Homophobic slurs”. The battery was wrong, the speech was not. I’m against hate crime laws because they impose thought crimes on top of actual crimes.
Agreed.

“Hate crime” was a phrase developed, and later codified by leftist ‘Legistrators’ ~ & it ain’t worth spit!

If I beat the snot out a black man, and during the beating I said, “You Jew moth**f***er”, would they pump up the charges from simple assault to add a ‘hate’ crime charge?

Stupidity re-defined.

[User901]

That's right. "Hate Crime" legislation is the certain gateway to tyranny. The idea of "hate" is too subjective of concept to be written into law if justice is to remain blind.

The potential for the exploitation of such laws by the incorporation of the personal biases of the authors of "hate" legislation is enormous.

There should be no "hate" legislation on any books any where in the United States of America. Battery is battery. Assault is assault. A person is not exactly exhibiting love for another person to batter or assault them. That's already assumed.

Hate crimes are a political exploit written into law. Plain and simple.

[fwdude]

“Hate crimes” are actually deemed to be crimes in themselves, not enhancements to existing criminal penalties. In this way, the ‘hate’ can eventually be separated from the actual conventional crime, to be applied at will to Christians.

Soon, not hiring a flaming fag to work as an attendant at your church daycare will be considered a ‘hate crime.’