"Last year, lawmakers in South Carolina introduced legislation that would have increased the standard penalties for anyone who assaults, intimidates or threatens another individual if they did so because of the victims race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, or sexual orientation. It was defeated by various Christian organizations as they feel it is their right to be able to assault or murder someone because of the crime of homosexuality and receive no additional time. Phrases like "thought crime" punishment are a frequent fearmongering strategy that seems to be working well on their followers. All the while ignoring the hypocrisy that Christians are a protected group on both the federal and state levels. Maybe one of the anti-gays here can explain, I thought homosexuals were the ones attacking the poor defenseless christofacists (this phrase does not apply to all Christians, only those wishing to force their agenda and their perverted version of gods word to satisfy their hate). I thought you just wanted to be left alone in your safe space, poor precious melting snowflake. Anyone care to explain?
While I most certainly don’t support the motives you assign to these laws being blocked, I also don’t support automatically increase punishments for crimes if the motives can be identified as fitting specific categories. I do think there should be flexibility in sentencing depending on the specific circumstances of each case and that would include motive – beating someone up simply because you identify them as being in the “wrong” grouping deserves a significant sentence regardless of the perceived grouping – but that flexibility should be open to the judge within sentencing guidelines rather than automatic definitions bases on predetermined strict categories. I think the flaws in the concept of these categorised sentencing increments makes it easier for those opposed for negative reasons to succeed, which in itself can only embolden them.
Bullcorn. Your premise is emotional demonization. Christians don't feel they have the right to harm anyone. Citizens do believe a crime is a crime, period. Whatever prejudices are in someone's head isn't a factor in punishment or adding punishment. Assault is assault, regardless of your sexual preferences, etc.
Demonstrably false: Assault someone for being a Christian - time and a half on your sentence Assault someone for being gay - "you can't prove what's in my head you're attacking my religious freedom" Hate crime laws, like public accommodation laws and affirmative action laws that discriminate against one class and then make it illegal to discriminate against another are unjust. The crux of the issue is those that benefit don't want to lose said benefits, they just don't want anyone else to have them.
Once again, my position is asssult is assault, and the attacker and victim are of no concern to me, just the degree of the punishment should fit the degree of the crime. That's justice.
Unfortunately it doesn't currently work that way. Why are Christian organizations (who's members currently benefit from AA, hate crime laws and PA) pushing so hard to prevent other groups from the same protections? I thought they just wanted to be "left alone", looks like another example of no - they don't.
Anyone who threatens, assaults, and intimidates a person should be guilty of those crimes. Why they did it is irrelevant. I'm against so called "hate crime" legislation. Why someone did something really has no relevance other than to establish motive.
All crimes are hate crimes. They should all be treated as equal but that isn't what is happening here.