LDS Church won’t oppose Utah LGBT Hate Crimes Bill

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Anijen, what is the impact of laws that are specifically designed to affect only a certain subset of society and no one else? What is the impact of laws that carry a more severe punishment if committed for only these same specific groups?  Does it just punish the criminal more severely or does it also, in the long run, protect that group because criminal are not completely stupid and begin to avoid those specific groups? 

Unfortunately, many laws are written directly from emotional response to an act. For example; Hate Crime Act came from the emotional outrage of the Matthew Shepard murder. Patriot Act from the emotional outrage of the attack on September 11, 2001. The Three Strikes Law came out of raw emotion of the kidnapping, sexuall molestation, and murder of Polly klaas. I'm not saying these laws are bad or not needed (well maybe I am for the Three Strikes Law), but emotion is not the best way to legislate into law. A short answer to the question is; yes, they were also designed to deter violent crimes against all classes of people.

 

Quote

but the reality is that those laws were created to more severely punish criminal that commit acts against protected classes.

The creation of these laws definitely had in mind protected classes, but has evolved since. For example; a hate crime can be for unprotected class or a lesser protected class as well. Remember it is not the class of people that designates a hate crime but done out of and motivated by the actual hate type the perpetrator holds.

 

Quote

If the same crime is committed against another individual that does not belong to the protected classes they are not punished as severely.

Correct. A battery against me is a crime. The same battery against me because the perpetrator hates white religious males could also carry Hate Crime elements and be sentenced more severally. True, some classes are easier to notice and prove the type of hate one carries for such a class.

Also, when hate crimes were being debated the Eighth Amendment was seriously considered whether adding punishment for the same crime against a suspect class was a violation of Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause (giving greater punishments for the same crime). In the end, Hate Crime was considered a separate charge (thus, not the same crime) even though it was the same action and punishments were restricted to no more than three felonies from the crime.

 

Quote

This is a classic example of government instituted inequality. If these types of crimes did not exist, criminals would still be punished for the same crimes, but punishment would be equal and the result would be a more just society. 

You are correct, the government justice system as good as it is, has never been a perfect system, but has never even been close to equality for all. This is one of the judges most difficult challenge to take the totality of the circumstances on an individual basis and mete out fair justice. However, I am seeing signs of improvement.

My own take:

• I had to advise on a case were a very drunk Native American who had not ate for a week, stole a can of beans right out of a sack from a lady just exiting a grocery store. the man sat on the curve eating the beans while the police were on their way. Because that was his third offense (strike three) he would have had to have the maximum sentence of three years. Fair justice? No, not at all. 
• Good Time Laws. Mandatory allowance of prisoners to serve only half their sentence. These type of laws tie the hands of judges. e.g. a judge wants to give a guilty person 30 years for 3 different crimes, each carries a 10 year sentence. With Good Time, the prisoner would be out in 15 years and in some cases in 5 years (if each charge was given a sentence to be served concurrently instead of consecutively).

Yes, the justice system needs fixing. I see good indications that it is heading that way.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Anijen

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If that were true, what were the laws that protected everyone deemed deficient?

You didn't answer my question.  

Can you name a single individual in this country that would not be covered by hate crime?

If you can't name a single person hate laws cover, then it proves that this law covers everyone.

It isn't that other laws were deemed deficient.  It is an added penalty for the INTENT of a crime.  You have had this explained over and over again.  Intent makes a difference on how penalties are administered.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

In fact, no - they are not. Hate crime laws only protect specific, special, superior groups to the rest of society. What crimes were not protected when there were no hate crime laws?  You got it - all people were protected in the same way. The problem was with enforcement - not the lack of criminal laws. 

CFR. Which people are not protected by hate crime laws? Support or retract please.

[Bernard Gui]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love thy neighbor as thyself. 

Don’t hate crimes usually involve physical harm, a threat of violence, or violence...dislike for the victim?

An interesting and informative article...

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/hate-crimes-laws-and-penalties.htm

Quote

....Since everyone has a race, national origin, and so on, everyone is protected under hate crime laws when they are victimized because of their ......

• race
• color
• religion
• ancestry or national origin
• gender
• disability, or
• sexual orientation.

I have difficulty getting this.

It seems to me that no one is really protected by hate laws, but simply that the perp faces another felony charge if it can be proven his crime was motivated by hate. That’s not an easy thing to do. Hate dwells in the heart. A clever hater could avoid the extra rap simply by keeping his hate under wraps, so to speak.

“Protected” means measures were taken prior to the offense to prevent it or to lessen the chance it would happen. If it is meant as a wider societal deterrent, then I wonder how effective it has been. Are hateful people who get longer sentences less likely to repeat and more likely not to hate any more?  

If I were assaulted, robbed, and beaten to within an inch of my life, I don’t find any solace or joy or have a greater sense of justice served to know that the same act committed against my Muslim neighbor got the creep another year in the slammer. The perp didn’t have any benevolent feelings for me. We both suffered the same. This looks like my neighbor deserves more “protection“ than me. IMO, that is not equal treatment under the law. I would feel the same if the situation were reversed and the malcreant targeted me because of my religion. “I got lucky this time, so my assailant gets a few more months in the pokey.”

Now, what if a jerk paints swastikas on a synagogue, bacon grease on a mosque door, burns down an LDS chapel, knocks off someone’s MAGA hat in a restaurant and throws a drink in his face, breaks Starbucks windows in a riot, runs someone off the road because they were cut off in traffic, beats up a Seahawks fan before a game in LA, or puts a crucifix in a bottle of urine? Probably all crimes motivated by hate. But don’t all crimes come from some degree of hate? Perhaps there should be a sliding scale of hate measurement....the greater the hate, the longer the sentence. That way we would all be “protected.”

‘‘Tis a puzzlement.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

If you or a member of your family were targeted and physically attacked by someone only because you were a Mormon, do you believe this could not be classified as a hate crime?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but the obvious answer is 'yes,' under the current law in most jurisdictions this could be classified as a hate crime. 

That being said, I would be perfectly fine if there were no hate crime laws whatsoever. I think society can get by just fine without them. 

 

16 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To start with, the law clearly considers "intent" and has long done so, as others have deftly explained earlier in this thread.

I think we need to be careful about what we are talking about here. It is true that the law has long considered intent. 

However, the law differentiates between "motivation" and "intent." And, prior to the creation of hate crime laws, motivation wasn't really an element of any criminal law. 

Motivation was sometimes used in the sentencing phase of criminal trials, and motivation was applicable in certain civil cases, but I don't believe it was ever an element of a crime prior to the existence of hate crimes. 

Intent has always been an element of a crime, but motivation is a relatively new addition (and it only applies to certain crimes).

 

[provoman]

The new peoposed hate crime bill includes "marticulation"

Might as well put "political affiliation" on the list if we are going to treat college attendance as a protected class.

If martculation is a protected class and marticulation is the act of enrollemnt or attendance at a college or university, then would that mean stay at home moms who are not enrolled in college or university would not be a protected class.

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, provoman said:

The new peoposed hate crime bill includes "marticulation"

Might as well put "political affiliation" on the list if we are going to treat college attendance as a protected class.

If martculation is a protected class and marticulation is the act of enrollemnt or attendance at a college or university, then would that mean stay at home moms who are not enrolled in college or university would not be a protected class.

No, everyone is in a "protected class"

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

The new peoposed hate crime bill includes "marticulation"

Might as well put "political affiliation" on the list if we are going to treat college attendance as a protected class.

If martculation is a protected class and marticulation is the act of enrollemnt or attendance at a college or university, then would that mean stay at home moms who are not enrolled in college or university would not be a protected class.

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

No, everyone is in a "protected class"

Provoman, 

To echo what Gray said, hate crimes legislation protects individuals on the basis of the classification in question however they relate to the characteristic in consideration.

Thus, Religious-based hate crimes legislation is equally applicable in protecting those who do affirmatively self-identify as a member of any given religion (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Zoroastrians, Unitarian Universalists, etc) AND those who do NOT identify with or as a member of ANY religion (atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, non-believers, secular humanists, members of no Faith, etc).

Race-based hate crimes legislation is equally applicable in protecting those who do affirmatively self-identify as a member of any single given race (Native American, Caucasian/white, African-American/black, Latino, Asian, etc) AND members of any given mixed racial backgrounds.

Gender/Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation-based hate crimes legislation is equally applicable in protecting those who do affirmatively self-identify as a member of any binary/singular gender or sexual orientation (male, female, straight, gay, etc) AND those who do NOT identify with or as a member of any binary/single gender or sexual orientation (gender non-conforming, non-binary gender, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc).

Therefore, if matriculation is under consideration for inclusion as a hate crime, the law would equally apply to and protect all citizens attending any given university (BYU, Utah State, U of U, UVU, etc) , AND any and all citizens attending no university at all (in your case, non-enrolled stay-at-home mothers).

Really.  This isn't rocket science, people.  Hate crimes legislation is in place to promote peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society.  xy

When the law says, "it's a more serious crime to beat someone up on the basis of their gender/religion/race/national origin/sexual orientation/etc., it's not promoting or protecting so-called "special interest groups" over others.  The law isn't saying "it's not OK to beat up minorities, but it's OK to beat up majorities," as some are asserting here.  Rather, the law is saying "It's not OK to beat up ANYONE on the basis of their XYZ characteristic." 

In a perfect world--the type of world in which all members of society don't violently harm or kill others based on the different protected-classification characteristics that we may have from one another--- we wouldn't have to have hate-crimes legislation.  Until we live in a society that has that level of unity (Zion?), hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Daniel2

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Provoman, 

To echo what Gray said, hate crimes legislation protects individuals on the basis of the classification in question however they relate to the characteristic in consideration.

Thus, Religious-based hate crimes legislation is equally applicable in protecting those who do affirmatively self-identify as a member of any given religion (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Zoroastrians, Unitarian Universalists, etc) AND those who do NOT identify with or as a member of ANY religion (atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, non-believers, secular humanists, members of no Faith, etc).

Race-based hate crimes legislation is equally applicable in protecting those who do affirmatively self-identify as a member of any single given race (Native American, Caucasian/white, African-American/black, Latino, Asian, etc) AND members of any given mixed racial backgrounds.

Gender/Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation-based hate crimes legislation is equally applicable in protecting those who do affirmatively self-identify as a member of any binary/singular gender or sexual orientation (male, female, straight, gay, etc) AND those who do NOT identify with or as a member of any binary/single gender or sexual orientation (gender non-conforming, non-binary gender, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc).

Therefore, if matriculation is under consideration for inclusion as a hate crime, the law would equally apply to and protect all citizens attending any given university (BYU, Utah State, U of U, UVU, etc) , AND any and all citizens attending no university at all (in your case, non-enrolled stay-at-home mothers).

Really.  This isn't rocket science, people.  Hate crimes legislation is in place to promote peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society.  xy

When the law says, "it's a more serious crime to beat someone up on the basis of their gender/religion/race/national origin/sexual orientation/etc., it's not promoting or protecting so-called "special interest groups" over others.  The law isn't saying "it's not OK to beat up minorities, but it's OK to beat up majorities," as some are asserting here.  Rather, the law is saying "It's not OK to beat up ANYONE on the basis of their XYZ characteristic." 

In a perfect world--the type of world in which all members of society don't violently harm or kill others based on the different protected-classification characteristics that we may have from one another--- we wouldn't have to have hate-crimes legislation.  Until we live in a society that has that level of unity (Zion?), hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences.

"Hate crimes legislation is in place to promote peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society."

assualt is a crime and the law is created to promote peaceful coexistence. Assault is acrime without a hate crimes law being on the books.

Again if college attendance should be protected so should political beliefs, I am positive a search of news outlets would show more crimes against indivuals because of the victim apparent political beleifs than victims of crimes based on the victims marticulation.

Edited February 20, 2019 by provoman

[Tacenda]

On my way to work today I heard on the radio that some legislators were discussing a law to come down harder on those that destroy buildings of worship or something like that, it made me think of the hate crime bill. It certainly ties in unless I heard it wrong.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

"Hate crimes legislation is in place to promote peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society."

assualt is a crime and the law is created to promote peaceful coexistence. Assault is acrime without a hate crimes law being on the books.

Your arguments are over two decades late. 

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Constitutionality and implementation of Hate Crime Legislation over 25 years ago, and literally every state in the nation signed an amicus brief in support of said legislation.

It’s clear you disagree with it, but hate crime laws have been a reality for quite some time, and with broad support in every state.

Further, I think it’s easy to verbally eschew hate crimes protections when one hasn’t been the brunt of them or if one lives in a predominantly religiously-homogenous bubble like 2019 Provo... But I can’t help but think that the Saints who faced extreme persecution in the early days of the LDS Faith would have welcomed the legal protections afforded to victims of hate crimes committed in the name of religion.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Daniel2

[provoman]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

"Hate crimes legislation is in place to promote peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society."

assualt is a crime and the law is created to promote peaceful coexistence. Assault is acrime without a hate crimes law being on the books.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Your arguments are over two decades late. 

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Constitutionality and implementation of Hate Crime Legislation over 25 years ago, and literally every state in the nation signed an amicus brief in support of said legislation.

It’s clear you disagree with it, but hate crime laws have been a reality for quite some time, and with broad support in every state.

Further, I think it’s easy to verbally eschew hate crimes protections when one hasn’t been the brunt of them or if one lives in a predominantly religiously-homogenous bubble like 2019 Provo... But I can’t help but think that the Saints who faced extreme persecution in the early days of the LDS Faith would have welcomed the legal protections afforded to victims of hate crimes committed in the name of religion.

 

Can you explain how a law that applies to EVERYONE equally, does not promote peaceful coexistance?

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by provoman

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can you explain how a law that applies to EVERYONE equally, does not promote peaceful coexistance?

Because if the law (here the punishment) was equal to everyone it would be simply unjust. It would promote contention, e.g. "Why does he only get a fine and I have to stay a week in jail for the same thing?" Families would start to have evil thoughts and ideas for the one who was punished in a lesser manner. It would not promote peaceful coexistence.

When the law is broke and a person goes to court for breaking the law, the judge needs to make a fair but just decision that is best for society. A decision that would not deter from the seriousness of law and at the same time give the defendant the best opportunity to reform and pay his debt. If you have two defendants who committed the exact same crime, in the exact same manner the judge will still consider each one on an independent basis. After doing so, the chances that the sentence of each defendant being the same is about zero. This is the best way and the Lord's way. when considering how to sentence the criminal, the judge will take into consideration the defendants; level of intelligence, knowledge of the law, their propensity to repeat, their likelihood of never repeating it, their contribution to society, etc..

Two criminals, each independently commit the same crime, in the same manner:

• A person who is highly intelligent compared to one who has severe learning disability.
• The past crime record of the defendant (gives a greater knowledge of the court system) compared to one who has never been in court.
• The propensity to be a repeat offender or the likelihood of one and done.
• The age and maturity of both defendants (say one is 18 the other is 45)

 

I do not want to be judged by a metric one size fits all judgement, but I want all my strengths, weaknesses, temptations, level of repentance to all be calculated in that judgment. that is why punishment cannot be doled out on a simple mandatory equal basis. Life is always more complicated than that.

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Because if the law (here the punishment) was equal to everyone it would be simply unjust. It would promote contention, e.g. "Why does he only get a fine and I have to stay a week in jail for the same thing?" Families would start to have evil thoughts and ideas for the one who was punished in a lesser manner. It would not promote peaceful coexistence.

When the law is broke and a person goes to court for breaking the law, the judge needs to make a fair but just decision that is best for society. A decision that would not deter from the seriousness of law and at the same time give the defendant the best opportunity to reform and pay his debt. If you have two defendants who committed the exact same crime, in the exact same manner the judge will still consider each one on an independent basis. After doing so, the chances that the sentence of each defendant being the same is about zero. This is the best way and the Lord's way. when considering how to sentence the criminal, the judge will take into consideration the defendants; level of intelligence, knowledge of the law, their propensity to repeat, their likelihood of never repeating it, their contribution to society, etc..

Two criminals, each independently commit the same crime, in the same manner:

• A person who is highly intelligent compared to one who has severe learning disability.
• The past crime record of the defendant (gives a greater knowledge of the court system) compared to one who has never been in court.
• The propensity to be a repeat offender or the likelihood of one and done.
• The age and maturity of both defendants (say one is 18 the other is 45)

 

I do not want to be judged by a metric one size fits all judgement, but I want all my strengths, weaknesses, temptations, level of repentance to all be calculated in that judgment. that is why punishment cannot be doled out on a simple mandatory equal basis. Life is always more complicated than that.

Not sure if you are being serious.

[Anijen]

33 minutes ago, provoman said:

Not sure if you are being serious.

Yes, I was. Did I write something that implied I was joking?

I go to court very often and see the challenges judges have to make affecting the lives of the people who commits crime. I find myself usually hoping for a stricter sentence than what is usually given (i.e. a guy gets his 3rd DUI he gets fined, next guy has his 4th DUI he got 3 years). Each sentencing is taken very seriously and the judges do the best they can.

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yes, I was. Did I write something that implied I was joking?

I go to court very often and see the challenges judges have to make affecting the lives of the people who commits crime. I find myself usually hoping for a stricter sentence than what is usually given (i.e. a guy gets his 3rd DUI he gets fined, next guy has his 4th DUI he got 3 years). Each sentencing is taken very seriously and the judges do the best they can.

Yes I thought you were joking because your examples promote exactly what you suggest the law should not promote - ineqaulity in the application of punishment

Also your example does not show how enahnced penalties create peaceful coexistence by a neutral law in all respects does not promote peaceful coexistance.

Sentencing, is quite different from the black and white law. 

 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 

 

Can you explain how a law that applies to EVERYONE equally, does not promote peaceful coexistance?

 

I’m not going to play a game where I put a lot of thought and effort into a post, you disregard  any of the substance if what I wrote, then dismissively ask a single question that isn’t even reflective of the merits of my post.

I’ll let the following 2009 ADL Fact Sheet on the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (below) field the substance of your question.

A few other good links:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime

If you genuinely want answers to your questions, look into the laws, rulings, and statistics that can be found by other simple Google searches, since you appear to ignore everything I’m writing anyway. 

Beyond that, I’m content in knowing that our nation’s legislators, laws and top courts repeatedly reflect and reinforce the views I’ve been sharing about Hate Crime Legislation, and fail to support your objections thereto.

An Introduction to Hate Crime Laws

What are hate crime laws?

State hate crime laws impose tougher penalties on criminals who target their victims because of the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. So, if a criminal assaults a person because that person is Jewish, the crime would likely be a hate crime.

How do hate crime laws work?

State hate crime statutes are typically “penalty enhancement” statutes, which means that they increase the penalty for an offense if the victim or target is intentionally selected for violence because of his/her personal characteristics.

What does the new federal hate crime statute – the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act – do?

This act allows the federal government to provide assistance in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes – or, in limited circumstances, to investigate and prosecute hate crime cases when a locality is unable or unwilling to prosecute. Second, it ensures that those criminals who target their victims because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability are all covered by the law.

Why have hate crimes laws?

Whenever a bias-motivated crime is committed, the victim’s entire community is left feeling victimized, vulnerable, fearful, isolated, and unprotected by the law. Such crimes can also lead to reprisals and a dangerous spiral of escalating inter-group tension and violence. Thus, the impact of the crime is far greater than the already terrible impact on the individual.
  
Don’t hate crimes punish thoughts? Or speech?

Hate crime legislation has never been about punishing people for their beliefs or speech. Rather, it is about punishing people for their criminal actions. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Wisconsin’s hate crimes law (which is based on ADL’s model statute) in 1993 because the law clearly did not criminalize hate speech, which is constitutionally protected.

Won’t hate crimes lead to the prosecution of religious leaders who preach against homosexuality?

This is an oft-repeated but false charge. First, our nation’s Constitutional guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion would prohibit such a charge. Second, hate crime laws only punish criminal acts that target victims because of the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Preaching is not a criminal act. Third, the federal statute explicitly protects this activity.

Are hate crimes really a problem in America today?

Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent. According to the most recent data available from the FBI, there was almost one hate crime in America in every hour of every day in 2007 – a total of more than 7,600 reported bias-motivated incidents.

In addition, along with an increase in harsh, hateful rhetoric against Hispanics, immigrants and those who look like immigrants in recent months, there have been several very high-profile hate crimes against Hispanics recently, including several murders. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the election of the first African-American President, a deep economic and housing crisis, and a broken immigration system, we have seen a disturbing increase in ideologically-motivated violence against Jews and others. Sadly, hate crimes really are a problem.

Who supported the new federal hate crime law?

The bill has attracted the support of nearly 300 civil rights, religious, educational, professional, and civic organizations – and virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 26 state Attorneys General, and the National District Attorneys Association.

What is ADL’s role in hate crime law?

Most state hate crimes laws are based on or similar to ADL model legislation initially drafted in 1981. Forty-five states and the District of Colombia now have hate crimes laws, and the Supreme Court ruled such laws constitutional in the landmark case Wisconsin v Mitchell in 1993. For more than 10 years, ADL has led a broad coalition of civil rights, religious, educational, law enforcement and civic organizations working in support of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act.

For More Information: http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/
         

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I’m not going to play a game where I put a lot of thought and effort into a post, you disregard  any of the substance if what I wrote, then dismissively ask a single question that isn’t even reflective of the merits of my post.

I’ll let the following 2009 ADL Fact Sheet on the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (below) field the substance of your question.

A few other good links:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime

If you genuinely want answers to your questions, look into the laws, rulings, and statistics that can be found by other simple Google searches, since you appear to ignore everything I’m writing anyway. 

Beyond that, I’m content in knowing that our nation’s legislators, laws and top courts repeatedly reflect and reinforce the views I’ve been sharing about Hate Crime Legislation, and fail to support your objections thereto.

 

 

You ended a post with the statement 

"hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences."

You are topping off the entire comment with that claim, its is not dismissive to ask for clarification. 

Edited February 21, 2019 by provoman

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

You ended a post with the statement 

"hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences."

You are topping off the entire comment with that claim, its is not dismissive to ask for clarification. 

Yep. My last comment about you dismissing the majority of the entire substance of my post, and then ending with a trite question, still stands.

You clearly aren’t worth my time or effort in responding, until you do your own due dilligence (a.k.a. Research). 

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I can’t help but think that the Saints who faced extreme persecution in the early days of the LDS Faith would have welcomed the legal protections afforded to victims of hate crimes committed in the name of religion.

The problem the early Saints had wasn't with the lack of laws prohibiting physical assault, destruction of property, etc. The problem was that the people responsible for making and enforcing the laws weren't interested in helping the Mormons. I don't see how having additional unenforced laws would have made any difference. 

 

[provoman]

filler

Edited February 22, 2019 by provoman

[provoman]

On 2/21/2019 at 12:31 AM, Daniel2 said:

Yep. My last comment about you dismissing the majority of the entire substance of my post, and then ending with a trite question, still stands.

You clearly aren’t worth my time or effort in responding, until you do your own due dilligence (a.k.a. Research). 

You have not presented anything proves that hate crimes laws are needed to protect everyone equally. Your post about religious and none religious are treated equal and how sexual identity applies to all sexual identities, does not show how or why hate crimes are needed to protect everyone equally.

Assault is a crime. If someone assaults you it is a crime. If someone assaults me it is a crime. We are both considered equal victims under the law. The people who assaulted us are subject to the same penalties and same considerations for sentencing. So without hate crimes laws, we already have a situation where everyone is protected equally under the law, and we already have situation where the law was created to promote peaceful coexistence. 

Now lets change it up a bit, and for purpose of discussion SB103 Penalty enhancements - in it current form - is law in Utah:

Someone assaults you because you identify as gay.

Someone assaults me for wearing a MAGA hat.

The assault against you can be prosecuted as a hate crime under SB103.

The assault against me cannot be prosecuted as a hate crime under SB103.

I was engaged in the Constitutionally protected right of free speech, you were engaged in the Constitutionally protected right of just being yourself. Why should your status as victim be deserving of more protection than my status as a victim. My right to law freedom expression is just as inviolate as your right to just be yourself. Hate crimes laws are in part defended on the basis that the victim or class of victim will have fear to engage in Constitutionally protected activities, unless there are enhanced penalties; why should MAGA hats wearers have to live in fear of assault or other victimization simply for engaging in lawful protected speech?

If we are going to create classes deserving of extra protections, then we need to be a broad as possible.

Victim chosen for lawful freedom of expression - see recent assault at UC Berkley, and one can all too easily find videos of assaults on people wearing MAGA hats.

Medical providers targeted because of the medical services provided.

Prosecutor and Defense attorneys

Attorneys targeted for the lawful services provided - I am thinking about divorce attorneys. or even Gloria Alred/Clarence Darrow types.

Artists

Public accommodation providers targeted for the services they do or do not provide.

 

When considering which victims are deserving of enhanced penalties, please remember that the hate crimes law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell were not upheld or defended by the State because of protecting inborn unchanging characteristics.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by provoman

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

You have not presented anything proves that hate crimes laws are needed to protect everyone equally. Your post about religious and none religious are treated equal and how sexual identity applies to all sexual identities, does not show how or why hate crimes are needed to protect everyone equally.

Assault is a crime. If someone assaults you it is a crime. If someone assaults me it is a crime. We are both considered equal victims under the law. The people who assaulted us are subject to the same penalties and same considerations for sentencing. So without hate crimes laws, we already have a situation where everyone is protected equally under the law, and we already have situation where the law was created to promote peaceful coexistence. 

Now lets change it up a bit, and for purpose of discussion SB103 Penalty enhancements - in it current form - is law in Utah:

Someone assaults you because you identify as gay.

Someone assaults me for wearing a MAGA hat.

The assault against you can be prosecuted as a hate crime under SB103.

The assault against me cannot be prosecuted as a hate crime under SB103.

I was engaged in the Constitutionally protected right of free speech, you were engaged in the Constitutionally protected right of just being yourself. Why should your status as victim be deserving of more protection than my status as a victim. My right to law freedom expression is just as inviolate as your right to just be yourself. Hate crimes laws are in part defended on the basis that the victim or class of victim will have fear to engage in Constitutionally protected activities, unless there are enhanced penalties; why should MAGA hats wearers have to live in fear of assault or other victimization simply for engaging in lawful protected speech?

If we are going to create classes deserving of extra protections, then we need to be a broad as possible.

Victim chosen for lawful freedom of expression - see recent assault at UC Berkley, and one can all too easily find videos of assaults on people wearing MAGA hats.

Medical providers targeted because of the medical services provided.

Prosecutor and Defense attorneys

Attorneys targeted for the lawful services provided - I am thinking about divorce attorneys. or even Gloria Alred/Clarence Darrow types.

Artists

Public accommodation providers targeted for the services they do or do not provide.

 

When considering which victims are deserving of enhanced penalties, please remember that the hate crimes law in Wisconsin v. Mitchell were not upheld or defended by the State because of protecting inborn unchanging characteristics.

 

 

The final decision-making body when it comes to determining if a law is Constitional (a.k.a. accords with the equal application of the laws as required by our Constitution) is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The proof I have provided that hate crimes laws are Constititional is the Supreme Court’s action of upholding such laws. That is all the proof I need to provide, as their word is final, legally speaking. You can argue against them all you want, but their word is law, unless and until they rule otherwise.

I haven’t said, nor is it my position, that hate crimes are only applicable to inborn or unchanging characteristics. Religious affilItion is one main obvious exception that isn’t inborn or unchangeable, so to suggest I need to show or prove anything about unchanging characteristics is a strawman, at least as far as my views are concerned. 

Political affiliation IS considered a protected class in some regions (I believe that’s the case in D.C.).  It’s possible SCOTUS may add or uphold political affiliation to the list on a Federal Level... if that’s a hill you want to die on, you’re free to excercise your constitutional right to due process, make your case in the legal realm, and seek redress through the courts. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Daniel2

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The final decision-making body when it comes to determining if a law is Constitional (a.k.a. accords with the equal application of the laws as required by our Constitution) is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The proof I have provided that hate crimes laws are Constititional is the Supreme Court’s action of upholding such laws. That is all the proof I need to provide, as their word is final, legally speaking. You can argue against them all you want, but their word is law, unless and until they rule otherwise.

I haven’t said, nor is it my position, that hate crimes are only applicable to inborn or unchanging characteristics, religious affilItion being one main obvious exception, so that’s a strawman, at least as far as my views are concerned. 

Political affiliation IS considered a protected class in some regions (I believe that’s the case in D.C.).  It’s possible SCOTUS may add or uphold political affiliation to the list on a Federal Level... if that’s a hill you want to die on, you’re free to excercise your constitutional right to due process, make your case in the legal realm, and seek redress through the courts. 

Speaking of strawman....I never challenged the Constitutionality of hate crimes laws, nor have I posted that hate crimes laws violate the Constitution.

I have challenged your position that "hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences." and I beleive you also used "peaceful coexistance".

Data nor studies have been presented that such laws are necessary for eqaulity or peaceful coexistance.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

Speaking of strawman....I never challenged the Constitutionality of hate crimes laws, nor have I posted that hate crimes laws violate the Constitution.

I have challenged your position that "hate crimes legislation are necessary to promote equality despite differences." and I beleive you also used "peaceful coexistance".

Data nor studies have been presented that such laws are necessary for eqaulity or peaceful coexistance.

I’ll keep calling out your Strawman arguments all day.....

I did NOT say that hate crimes “are necessary for” equality or peaceful coexistence.... I said they “promote” equality and peaceful coexistence. You added the words “are necessary” to what I said. 

In fact, I even concluded that post from which you misquoted me from by acknowledging that in a perfect world, hate crimes laws WOULDN’T be necessary.

Finally, I believe it’s fairly self-evident that promoting equality and peaceful coexistence is the aim of hate crimes: Don’t hurt or kill others because they have a different XYZ characteristic than you; as in, treat people with different XYZ characteristic equal to those that are like you. As in... do unto others (in the most literal sense—as in, those who are ‘other’) as you would have them do unto you. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Daniel2