Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (111693)	5/23/2009 10:55:19 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541355

You miss the distinction - the degree or aggressiveness of the assault or crime has always been considered but not so much the motivation other than to prove guilt via the tripod of motivation, opportunity and means. This type of law makes as much sense as protecting feeble minded dumb blonds over brunettes as relates to crime. It's hard for me to imagine two assault victims of the same type or degree laying in hospital beds side by side and telling one his assailant got some extra punishment because he's gay - it smacks of unequal protection under the law and a knee jerk reaction by the government to bend over for our gay friends. I understand the motivation for such a laws, the idea of attacking someone for some choice they've made is disgusting - but I wonder if you'd be so quick to condemn some gays for attacking christians that voted down prop 8 if they were attacked - seems like a pretty clear hate crime or at least intolerance of others views and beliefs. Justice is supposed to be blind to race and sexual orientation should be no different. To create laws that protect one group over another is unequal. It's like the classic comedy line "It's cause I'm black, right?" Obiviously not every crime against one of these newly protected classes is a hate crime, even assault, but now the court must probe the depths to determine the level/degree of hate in every case. This is going to be applied poorly over time I feel - with various outcomes. No good deed goes unpunished I suspect and we'll rue the day the ACLU uses this to protect a pediphile.