Just because we disagree with what gays are doing makes us insecure? Weird.

You showed your true colors right there Jim Y. You have great animosity towards gay people and do not wish to see hate crimes legislation protect gays in any way. If those on the Right that claim that we didn’t need any hate crime legislation whatsoever, they would be the first to howl about “religion” being removed from the books.

Personally, I disagree with those that bible worship and its offensive to me but I don’t desire to commit a crime against them or feel insecure in my faith because they do so.

While we are on the topic of intelligence, kindly note that Jason has already shown you that your Philadelphia example actually disproves your point that hate crimes legislation does not work. In the case you cited, no one was convicted under it.

The charges were dropped because a judge felt they did not apply. That merely means that what they were charged with, and the hate crime enhancement tacked onto those charges, were found to be without merit. It does NOT mean they were being completely peaceful and nonthreatening. However, it DOES suggest one thing:

What they did was not peaceful, but also not against the law.

The fact that the charges were dropped only means that a judge decided based on the evidence that the charges against them were baseless. That in NO WAY means that Repent America told the absolute truth about what happened that day. Your attempt to connect these two different things is a fallacy.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Repent America took Outfest and the City to court for damages and that a judge found in favor of Outfest and the city.

From the philly pride website article:
“In October of 2005, the Repent America protesters brought a federal lawsuit against Philly Pride, and personally against its executive director and senior advisor, as well as various police officials alleging, among other things, that the Philly Pride defendants had conspired with the City of Philadelphia to violate Repent America’s First Amendment rights.”

A judge ruled in favor of Philly Pride commenting :

” . . . facts that are not in material dispute show that the plaintiffs’ interaction with the crowd was not peaceful. . . . .”

Did you read that? A Federal judge basically says they are lying when they say they were merely singing hymns and holding signs. That’s the lies we’re talking about.

The judge also said,
“Defendant Philly Pride had the right to exclude plaintiffs and their contrary message from their expressive, permitted event.”

And on what grounds? A little SUPREME COURT decision called: Hurley v Irish-American GLBT Group of Boston (1995).

In that case the Supreme Court found that an event organizer does not have to include, tolerate, or make space for a group who it believes is counter to it’s own message. Or to put it in the words of the article, “The Court recognized that it was essential to the protection of free speech rights to give an event organizer the right to shape the message of its event.”

Rather than peacefully protesting outside the event, Repent America chose to bring themselves, their signs, and bullhorns into the event.

Imagine you are watching Shakespeare in the park, perhaps you bought tickets. Perhaps there are vendors present to sell related merchandise. Would it be fair for someone who dislikes Shakespeare to interrupt the performance? Would it be right for them to head to the stage with a bullhorn and try to drown out the actors?

Had Repent America stayed outside the festival and protested, they wouldn’t have run into so much trouble. But since they felt it necessary to disrupt someone else’s freedom of speech, they were doing something wrong,(but not illegal) and can’t sue because organizers took measures to have them removed.

http://www.phillypride.org/news5.html

Sorry logic and facts insults your intelligence.

“Disgusting things”? Are you mad?

Does it not occur to you that some people may find what you do in your bedroom equally disgusting? An individual’s personal “disgust” with a sexual practice is not a satisfactory basis upon which to base social policy or human rights.

Regardless of how revolting we might find your sexual practices, we do not denigrate you for it. We do not attack you, and we do not lobby to deny you equal treatment under the law.

If you are so principled about hate crimes legislation in general, then why are you not trolling Christian sites and demanding that religion be removed as a grounds for protection? Honestly, you insult our intelligence!

Right. Look at the videos. Who is being polite and who is calling the other group “Mother F***ers”?

Who is insecure? Why can’t gays do whatever disgusting things they need to do in their homes – just like adulterers? After all, adulterers are just like gays – they were born that way and can’t help themselves.

Just because we disagree with what gays are doing makes us insecure? Weird.

I don’t think it should be elevated based on any group, religion, or race.

It seems simple to me that your thoughts don’t matter. It’s your actions. If you commit a crime you should be punished for it equally whether you did it against a Christain, grandma, or gay person.

>You mean the two minute snippet
>released by Repent America? Un-huh,
>that’s what I call proof. Chortle,
> chuckle, guffaw.

To repeat:
The videos AND the fact that all charges were dropped against the Christians prove that what they were saying is true and not lies as others on this site have suggested.

There is a complete 30 minute video on the event that was used in the trial to acquit the Christians. The law says it’s true, why not you?

The reason, Jim, that attacks based on race and religion and sexual orientation are prosecuted more than others are two fold:

1. They are attacks that are based on an attribute of a person rather than on something they may have done.

If you hit someone because they insulted your wife and called your kid names, it is battery and illegal. But it is also something they contributed to. However, if you hit them just because they are black and you hate black people, that is not something they can avoid.

2. They are used to intimidate communities of people. Just as burning a cross on a lawn or painting a swastika on a synagogue serve to frighten or intimidate a minority, so too do crimes based primarily on the victim’s identity within a group serve as a crime against that entire group.

Now some people make a principled stand against all hate crime legislation. (Personally, while I favor hate crimes tracking, I’m not a fan of enhanced sentencing.) But those who do so do not pick and choose which groups they don’t want subjected to hate crimes legislation.

But you, Jim Y, seem only to dislike hate crimes when they apply to violent crimes against gay people. This suggest to us that you are not at all principled, but instead are showing animus against gays.

Idealogues I can understand. But I find haters, bigots, and homophobes to be weak minded insecure people who seek to deal with their own feelings of inadequacy by lashing out at others. They are rather pathetic.

that question is a serious dodge and a crafty anti-gay industry talking point. Hate crimes protection do not place crimes against gays on a higher level than say a crime against a grandmother or a child.

You see hate crimes protection already exists in matters of race and religion. What if I asked a question like:

“Why should it be more illegal to kill an evangelical Christian than a grandmother? Why should there be more punishment for beating a black person than beating a child?”

Do you see how this game is played?