Teen Girls Face Hate Crime Charges Over Anti-Gay Flier

OK, let's look at some defitions here:

Well, it wasn't false or unjustified.

The boy himself destroyed his own reputation.

No defamation took place, so what they printed was truth.

No libel.

No defamation took place, so no slander. (I used defintion 3 only because it was the one pertaining to law.)

Nope. Nothing physical. (I quoted only the legal definition again.)

So, from what I've seen, if the boy's reputation has been harmed, then he needs to be arrested for defamation of his own charater.

 

I was just talking about this to my wife, and she pointed out that this (thought police) is a very handy tool of Satan.

It looks good and soungs good to knee-jerk reactionaries who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

But, all hate crime legislation does is regulate your thoughts. "Why did you drag that black man to his death?" "Oh, you can't say that about this particular protected class of people, you'll make them feel bad!"

She brought up my pastor friend who was jailed for preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit.

What else in the Bible is offensive to people? How long until they become a protected class of people?

What do the laws not apply equally to all?

Why is it OK to some to regulate thoughts?

 

That's what I said, only with fewer words.

 

Of course it's not, but it is aberrant behavior and those who participate in such an aberration can reasonably expect comment from some of those who behave in a more normal fashion.

 

Homosexulality is a crime against God.

 

The United States is not God.

Prove it.

 

Which explains why the laws of the United States are often at enmity with the laws of God. The United States finds sodomy to now be acceptable under law. When there was a semblance of the United States honoring God's laws, sodomy was illegal.

 

I suppose if you don't tell anyone about it is still illegal in the military. What other jurisdictions would you be referring to?

 

Yeah that pesky Constitution just keeps getting in the way....

Sorry, but since our founding the SCOTUS has had to determine the constitutionality of laws in various states. It helps to have uniform laws, you know. Stems from that pesky Article 4 section 2 which says that the citizens of each state are entitled to the privledges and immunities of the citizens of the several states. Not to mention that pesky 14th amendment which reads:

Heaven forbid the SCOTUS actually perform their duties under the constitution. How do you account for the fact that Texas was not enforcing their sodomy law equally across the board? The law stated that all sodomy was illegal, hetero and homo, but then did not enforce the law. For that matter why would personal liberty not pertain to unwanted government intrusion into private dwellings? Do you want the government to control what you do in private in the confines of your marriage? No one else should have to endure government control of theirs either. did you even read Lawrence v. Texas? Did it escape your notice that the court said a "personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals" ?

 

Was this around the same time that this Godly nation was OK with slavery? Or later, when women couldn't have the vote? Or later, when African Americans couldn't eat or relieve themselves or get water from the same place as white folk?

Yeah, that was a real Godly time, that...

 

Dragoon,

There is no 10th amendment argument in light of the 14th amendment, unless you are under some diluted impression that the 14th amendment is somehow illegal as well.

10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

14th amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

And the ever important Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Would you be so kind to remind me again why this is a 10th amendment issue? You don't have to agree with homosexuality, in fact you can say it is an abomination, but that does not change the fact that state governments, nor federal, can legislate personal, consensual behavior conducted in private.

 

Yes, and the American people saw fit to ammend the Constitution with the 14th amendment. We cannot look at the original document and the 1st 10 amendments and say that's it. The 14th amendment is there and it is part of the supreme law of the land, and under this part of the supreme law of the land states cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, and property without die process of law. That liberty extends to matters of a personal and private nature as has been determined by the court under the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitutions and its founders. Review the history of judicial review and get back to me. (hint look to the FP's and the rich and entrenched history of English common law)

 

That is the commonly held liberal view of the Constitution.

In a real pinch, they'll spin any little ol' amendment to make it conform to their view of how society should be.