Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2008 Archive' started by Magnetic Poles, Apr 29, 2008.
Frontier Airlines employees charged in noose incident.
Was a crime committed?
I also wonder what crime this stupid employee committed. He should lose his job, but I'm not sure he should face criminal charges.
I see this like waving a swastika at a Jewish person and asking, "Ready for the gas chamber?" Apparently such behavior is a crime in Denver.
It's akin to verbally threatening someone with bodily harm, imo. Can't see how diversity training is going to help this kind of hatred.
If it's a legitimate threat for whites to to wave a noose at blacks, is it also one for blacks to chant "Burn, baby burn!" at whites?
I am not sure about Colorado, but it may fall under a "hate crime law".
Ok, sounds about right.
That "hate crimes" type of legislation will soon be used against Christianity, on a big scale. IMO
I'm afraid you might be right.
I am curious, what leads you to believe this?
He is right. That's why Christians should be againsthate crime legislation. I agree with you. Fired ? Absolutely. Charged ? No.
While I don't know America's current status on actual legislation, I do know Congress is being pressured to enact laws to prevent opposing views concerning legitimizing homosexuality.
It has been decided that intolerance toward the whole homosexual movement is wrong, and the only real way of stopping it is through legislation.
Canada has that already in place, to an ever larger degree. Focus on the Family cannot broadcast their program in Canada that they do here, because of it..I just don't remember the details.
It is all over Europe also. Sicne Christianity stands agaisnt all kinds of depravity this will most certainly be used against Christianity. Anyone who doesnt see that has their head in the sand.
1. Hate crimes are crimes of thought. It is not the government's job to police the thought life of its citizenry. Hate crime legislation requires the authorities to determine, "What was this person thinking about when they committed said crime?" It's unprovable stuff, and beyond the scope of government's reach, besides.
2. Hate crime elevates one group's status over another's. You will find nearly zero instances of hate crimes against white males. Thus, by the government's reasoning, hatred is only possible in one direction. Hogwash. Why is beating up a gay man deserving of more punishment than beating up a straight guy? When you give punishment for one class of citizenry's victimhood over another, you might as well burn the gains made during the Civil Rights era...because you're right back to where you started: One group, in the eyes of the government, is worth more than another.
3. Hate crimes are completely unneccessary. If I kill a man, I should suffer the death penalty--no matter if the victim was straight, gay, black, white, or polka-dotted. We don't need "hate crimes," which by definition cause an inequity in justice. We need truth-in-sentencing, and equal application of the law, which produces equal justice.
4. "Hate crimes" itself is a silly, redundant term. How many folks beat others up, rape them, or kill them because they love them?
Not unlessed they seriously threatened to use the noose on the person it was displayed to.