LDS Church won’t oppose Utah LGBT Hate Crimes Bill

[Daniel2 2,035]

Kudos to The Church. From Fox News:

LDS Church says it doesn’t oppose hate crimes legislation that includes protections for LGBTQ people

Posted 3:26 pm, January 24, 2019, by Ben Winslow, Updated at 09:58PM, January 24, 2019

 

LDS Church won`t oppose hate crimes bill

SALT LAKE CITY -- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it will not oppose a bill that would expand Utah's hate crimes law to include protections for LGBTQ people.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been the recipients of hate crimes over the years. We understand that," Marty Stephens, the Church's Director of Government and Community Relations, said in an interview Thursday with FOX 13. "We believe all our sons and daughters of God should be protected and no group should be targeted for hate based on their beliefs."

The LDS Church has faced accusations it hindered any hate crime legislation when in 2016 it called for a moratorium on similar legislation after a landmark non-discrimination bill was passed that provided protections for LGBTQ people in housing and employment. Then-Sen. Steve Urquhart accused the Church of "snuffing out" his bill.

"We simply chose to make no comment which is what we do on most pieces of legislation. It’s gotten over the last year or two and it started to focus again on us this year that we were the ones causing the bill not to pass," Stephens said Thursday. "So that’s the reason we wanted to make a statement."

On Capitol Hill, a hate crimes bill enhancing penalties has largely stalled over protections for LGBTQ people. Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, is proposing to add an enhancement to crimes based on targeting someone for race, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. He said the bill was modeled after legislation crafted by the Anti-Defamation League.

"We would not propose that anyone be excluded," Stephens said of the protected categories list.

Sen. Thatcher said he was glad to hear comments from the Church as he prepared to run the bill for another year.

"I am very, very grateful that they are finally on the record," he said.

Sen. Thatcher still anticipated he would have to work to get the bill passed in the Utah State Legislature. But he said he has assured skeptical colleagues that the bill does not target thought.

"This bill has nothing to do with speech or opinions, thoughts or feelings. This isn’t about hurting someone’s feelings or offending somebody. This is about criminal actions," he said.

A racially-motivated attack on a man at a Salt Lake City tire shop last year has spurred new demands for a hate crimes law.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Governor Gary Herbert also indicated some support for the bill. At his monthly news conference on KUED, the governor said the LDS Church's statement "can't hurt" when it comes to odds of passage.

"The message we want to put out there is members of the gay community, LGBTQ, are loved and welcomed and appreciated for who they are. They ought to feel safe. They ought to feel loved. So anything we can do to enhance that, we ought to do," Gov. Herbert said.

The LGBTQ rights group Equality Utah told FOX 13 it was hopeful the bill would pass.

"Many Utah faith communities have already come out in support of inclusive hate crimes legislation," said Equality Utah Executive Director Troy Williams. "So with the news that the Latter-day Saints now won’t oppose, we remain hopeful and optimistic."

The Anti-Defamation League also called on the legislature to pass the bill.

"We are so grateful for the warm welcome and friendship that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has extended to the ADL and to the Jewish community. Comprehensive hate crimes legislation is imperative to the safety and well-being of all Utahns," said ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. "At a time when our society is polarized and hate crimes are on the rise, we urge legislators in Utah to make the bill currently being considered a high priority."

[LoudmouthMormon 355]

I don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime'.  But whatever.

Crime: I chop off your arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off your arm because I hate you.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.

 

I also don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime' only being applicable for certain minorities and traditionally oppressed.

Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.
Not a Hate Crime: I chop off a Trump supporter's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.

 

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Pointless.  Not helpful.  

[Tacenda 3,406]

29 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Kudos to The Church. From Fox News:

 

 

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

[The Nehor 19,331]

37 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime'.  But whatever.

Crime: I chop off your arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off your arm because I hate you.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.

 

I also don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime' only being applicable for certain minorities and traditionally oppressed.

Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.
Not a Hate Crime: I chop off a Trump supporter's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.

 

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Pointless.  Not helpful.  

And completely ignorant of what hate crime legislation is about.

The reason hate crime punishment exists is that hate crimes are often a form of terrorism. If I beat someone up because they cheated me in a business deal or were after my girlfriend I am a threat but the threat is personal and while I should be dealt with I am not fomenting fear. If I am targeting gay people, black people, Catholics, or whatever with violent attacks then it becomes impersonal. The community becomes an unsafe place for people fitting that description. Then if it is not just me but a lot of people feel that way then people can justifiably be afraid for their safety in their community. It becomes a form of terrorism, an effort to control and limit the lives of a group with the threat of violence. At that point you put them in a protected group and punish those causing said terror, taking them off the streets for longer because their crime is more detrimental to society or possibly terrorizing them into not attacking people with the threat of an increased sentence. Either works.

It also correctly increases the punishments for those with unjustifiable hate. If I hate and attack someone who directly hurt me that is a normal human response. I still should not attack them but it if understandable why I would want to. If I beat someone because they are black or gay or Catholic even though they have done nothing to me that is irrational. I am much more dangerous. That is not a normal human response. That is ingrained xenophobic hate and I need correction and punishment much more then I would in the first scenario.

Edited January 25 by The Nehor

[The Nehor 19,331]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

I think for most members it would be a given. This kind of statement tells the rabid few who think the church is secretly opposed to this that they are wrong which is healthy. It will not work for most of them but at least they know their opposition is not sanctioned by the apostles.

[JAHS 2,654]

Stories like this bring up an issue where critics think the church should keep their noses out of the government business and not say anything about a particular issue.
Then there are the critics who get upset if the church makes no statement about what the government is doing. 
 

[clarkgoble 4,992]

43 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime'.  But whatever.

Crime: I chop off your arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off your arm because I hate you.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.

 

I also don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime' only being applicable for certain minorities and traditionally oppressed.

Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.
Not a Hate Crime: I chop off a Trump supporter's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.

 

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Pointless.  Not helpful.  

Hate crimes merely notice the role of intent in actions. But we do this with crimes all the time. 

Crime: I hit you with a car. Unintentional = reckless endangerment or less
Crime: I hit you with a car. Intentional = murder

I understand the argument that we should punish based upon consequences not intent, but I don't think people making this argument have thought through the implications.

We do this with lots of things. A robbery with murder where the aim was to steal money is treated quite differently if the intent was instead terrorism with political aims. Hate crimes really are the same type of reasoning as treating political violence different from regular violence.

Edited January 25 by clarkgoble

[Gray 6,080]

43 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime'.  But whatever.

Crime: I chop off your arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off your arm because I hate you.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.

 

I also don't think I'll ever be down with the notion of a 'hate crime' only being applicable for certain minorities and traditionally oppressed.

Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.
Hate Crime: I chop off a gay guy's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment, plus another Y years enhancement because of the hate.
Not a Hate Crime: I chop off a Trump supporter's arm arm because I hate him.  Punishment: X years imprisonment.

 

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Pointless.  Not helpful.  

I suppose you also disagree with the notion that first degree murder should be treated differently than second degree murder, or that terrorism should be treated any different from other violent and property crimes. Motive doesn't matter, right?

[provoman 544]

Oppps

 

 

Edited January 25 by provoman

[LoudmouthMormon 355]

Yeah, motives matter.  I hear the counter-arguments.  I'm still stuck:

1. The notion that murdering someone you don't hate is somehow less-serious than someone you do hate, I just can't.  Cold blooded killers are less of a threat than a killer who hates all [x]?  Just because we've got an idea of who the murder is targeting, that makes it somehow a worse offense?
2. Human courts of justice trying to accurately measure the hate someone has.  I know, our earthly courts try and judge based on our best guesses at motive.  We do it poorly.

[Jeanne 3,605]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

I agree..where have they been??  Blah...blah...blah...we love you...welcome..welcome..give me a break.

[Storm Rider 5,596]

I have never thought "hate" crime designations have any value or that the murder of a protected class is somehow more significant than another murder of an unprotected class. This only pacifies activists and conditions society that somehow protected classes of people have more value than the dreaded, terrible, undeserving unprotected classes of people. 

[bluebell 21,050]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry but I can't see how the church is so awesome for doing this, where it should have been a given! 

The church thought it should have been a given as well, but people were blaming the church for not getting the last one passed (and starting to do the same thing again) so they made a statement so people would stop doing that.

[clarkgoble 4,992]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, motives matter.  I hear the counter-arguments.  I'm still stuck:

1. The notion that murdering someone you don't hate is somehow less-serious than someone you do hate, I just can't.  Cold blooded killers are less of a threat than a killer who hates all [x]?  Just because we've got an idea of who the murder is targeting, that makes it somehow a worse offense?
2. Human courts of justice trying to accurately measure the hate someone has.  I know, our earthly courts try and judge based on our best guesses at motive.  We do it poorly.

More or less that's the distinction between crimes of passion and intentional murder. The former almost always get much less time and often the law distinguishes between the two.

I'd also say "hate crime" is a misnomer since the real issue is political intent. Crimes by race for instance a murder of a rabbi because he's a prominent Jew, can't be separated from political aims. It's less about hate than larger political violence. It seems to matter quite a bit if Al Queda kills someone to install fear on society than if a robber kills someone in a crime because they are mad. Hate may be involved in both, but it's that larger societal issue that's the concern.

I'd add that a lot of white supremacy violence is the aftermath of low level guerilla warfare that persisted after the civil war. It was inherently terrorist in nature designed to undermine democratic principles through fear. While it has decreased a lot since the civil rights era of the 60's and 70's it's still there and is still political terrorism.

So the aims of violence or any other act surely should matter a great deal. 

Edited January 25 by clarkgoble

[ksfisher 4,155]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, motives matter.  I hear the counter-arguments.  I'm still stuck:

1. The notion that murdering someone you don't hate is somehow less-serious than someone you do hate, I just can't.  Cold blooded killers are less of a threat than a killer who hates all [x]?  Just because we've got an idea of who the murder is targeting, that makes it somehow a worse offense?
2. Human courts of justice trying to accurately measure the hate someone has.  I know, our earthly courts try and judge based on our best guesses at motive.  We do it poorly.

I think what the law is attempting to do here is offer some degree of additional protection to often times persecuted minority groups.  The execution may not be perfect, but I believe the ideals behind it are laudable.

What are your thoughts on this story?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900050212/the-fbi-has-been-tracking-crimes-against-latter-day-saints-for-3-years-heres-why.html

Edited January 25 by ksfisher

[pogi 5,276]

Here is the problem that I, and it seems others, have with hate crime legislation as presented.  It seems that the justification for this type of legislation is that 1) we should prosecute intent, and 2) it is a form of terror.  Ok great, then lets pass legislation that gives equal protection to all groups and peoples under the law.  My problem is that it creates protected classes when it could easily protect all classes, but fails to.  If you want to pass hate legislation, then it should protect the woman who chose to have an abortion and was violently attacked for doing so.  It should protect the prostitutes who are murdered and beaten for being prostitutes. It should protect republicans who are shot on a baseball field for being republican.  It should protect homeless people who are urinated on and beaten for being homeless. It should protect sports fans from being attacked for supporting a specific team.  It should protect my son for being targeted because he is an albino.  Equal protection under the law - that is the only hate crime legislation that I will ever vote for. 

It would not be hard to do that.

Edited January 25 by pogi

[pogi 5,276]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never thought "hate" crime designations have any value or that the murder of a protected class is somehow more significant than another murder of an unprotected class. This only pacifies activists and conditions society that somehow protected classes of people have more value than the dreaded, terrible, undeserving unprotected classes of people. 

Double thumbs up.

[The Nehor 19,331]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never thought "hate" crime designations have any value or that the murder of a protected class is somehow more significant than another murder of an unprotected class. This only pacifies activists and conditions society that somehow protected classes of people have more value than the dreaded, terrible, undeserving unprotected classes of people. 

Loss of privilege is always perceived as abuse by the privileged class.

Your counterargument is to victimize yourself?

[The Nehor 19,331]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, motives matter.  I hear the counter-arguments.  I'm still stuck:

1. The notion that murdering someone you don't hate is somehow less-serious than someone you do hate, I just can't.  Cold blooded killers are less of a threat than a killer who hates all [x]?  Just because we've got an idea of who the murder is targeting, that makes it somehow a worse offense?
2. Human courts of justice trying to accurately measure the hate someone has.  I know, our earthly courts try and judge based on our best guesses at motive.  We do it poorly.

It rarely requires a trained psychiatrist to determine whether it was a crime of passion or a crime of hate. Serial killers do generally get much more severe sentences then murders in a crime of passion.

[pogi 5,276]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Loss of privilege is always perceived as abuse by the privileged class.

Your counterargument is to victimize yourself?

What loss of privilege?  How can you lose protections you never had?  Secondly, how is Storm Rider not protected under the proposed legislation?  He has an ethnicity that is protected and he is of a religion that is protected, his gender is protected, his sexual orientation is protected... I don't think this is about him being a victim. Where do you get that from?

I for one am concerned about equal protections under the law for all groups of people and not a privileged few. 

Edited January 25 by pogi

[The Nehor 19,331]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

What loss of privilege?  How can you lose protections you never had?  Secondly, how is Storm Rider not protected under the proposed legislation?  He has an ethnicity that is protected and he is of a religion that is protected, his gender is protected, his sexual orientation is protected... I don't think this is about him being a victim. Where do you get that from?

I for one am concerned about equal protections under the law for all groups of people and not a privileged few. 

The lost privilege of being able to beat someone of a protected group up without facing additional punishment. I am not suggesting that Storm Rider would ever use this privilege but he seems salty about losing it as if he is the victim here.

Edited January 25 by The Nehor

[pogi 5,276]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I think what the law is attempting to do here is offer some degree of additional protection to often times persecuted minority groups. 

It really isn't protecting minority groups per se.  It protects all genders, all religions, all sexual orientations, all races, etc.  So everyone is protected in one way or another.   It doesn't seem to protect atheists, for example, and other groups that should be protected equally under the law.  Maybe atheists are included in the fine print, I don't know, but you get my drift. 

Edited January 25 by pogi

[bluebell 21,050]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The lost privilege of being able to beat someone of a protected group up without facing additional punishment. I am not suggesting that Storm Rider would ever use this privilege but he seems salty about losing it as if he is the victim here.

I'd be really surprised if you honestly think that's why Storm Rider doesn't support hate crime legislation.  

 

[pogi 5,276]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The lost privilege of being able to beat someone of a protected group up without facing additional punishment. I am not suggesting that Storm Rider would ever use this privilege but he seems salty about losing it as if he is the victim here.

Storm can speak for himself, but I think you are being completely unfair to what he actually said.

[The Nehor 19,331]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Storm can speak for himself, but I think you are being completely unfair to what he actually said.

 

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never thought "hate" crime designations have any value or that the murder of a protected class is somehow more significant than another murder of an unprotected class. This only pacifies activists and conditions society that somehow protected classes of people have more value than the dreaded, terrible, undeserving unprotected classes of people. 

I thought I was being kind.