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: d[-_-]b who wrote (111780)	5/23/2009 10:50:23 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541453

but in the case of religious types that oppose gay lifestyles (in general) but do not hate gays and simply believe they're living in sin or possessed by evil according to "god" So if I think someone is simply wrong and profess not to hate them, I can single them out for abuse anyway? Their right to express their disapproval stops at their own lips/keyboard/megaphone/petition/etc. But I do agree that that instance would be rare, an anti-gay who just happens to get involved in an assault with a gay person...and the judge would be there to sort it out. Hate crime laws are one of those things I neither crave nor disapprove of; fine with me if they are there, wouldn't cause me much bother if they weren't. But since Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia agreed that they pass constitutional muster, I see a very broad consensus behind their existence.