In Michigan, Improper Pronoun Use Could Land You in Jail

huh? Both examples I gave were violent and predicated on hate.

for your hypothetical, they are two different, unrelated crimes. One is petty larceny, and if committed in any municipality run by democrats is non-chargeable. Not considered a crime. The second one is a bit trickier since it is an open question if a President can “steal” his documents, classified or not. But regardless, any charge would likely not include theft or conversion.

this is fun. Give me more….

 

The plain language of the Federal and Florida Civil Rights Act sets forth various protected categories/classes without even getting to any complaints about judicial interpretation. If you believe the Federal and Florida Civil Rights Acts are unjust because they identify particular classes for protection and therefore don't protect everybody and every class, why do you support keeping those laws on the books at all? And how would you simply "tweak" them to make them just for everyone?

 

“Violence predicated on hate” and “hate crimes” are not the same thing. Someone might hate their neighbor for playing their music too loud, snap one day, and attack them, … that doesn’t make any violence that occurs a “hate crime”.

I’m glad to see you are admitting that the “same crime” … stealing paper … can have different results. Now apply that to this. See, like Joshua in War Games, you are learning. I’m so proud of myself.

 

reading comprehension is a skill you need help with. I said the following in all of these threads:

There are only 9 protected groups in this bill. The other 1000+ groups are excluded by operation of law.

The poor black, trans lesbian teacher who was attacked by a teacher hater was not protected, because teachers are excluded.

 

Being black, a lesbian, or a teacher, doesn’t mean that everything bad that happens to you is a hate crime. The definition includes groups that are normally the targets of hate, and limits the function if the law to cases where hate was actually a motive. Sorry you don’t like it, but that is what a hate crime law is.

 

I wonder what the two have in common. If only there was a clue……

 

So you’ve switched from being circular, to changing the subject. Got it. In your world, is hate fluid, like genders?

 

You really think was clever? “Violence predicated on hate” could be anything… someone banged your wife, so you act against him out of hate. “Hate crime” has a specific meaning defined by law.

Get a clue.

 

Is that all you got… Sounds like you are are losing.

 

Being black, a lesbian, or a teacher, doesn’t mean that everything bad that happens to you is a hate crime.

Congrats. I said that about 3 hours ago.


The definition includes groups that are normally the targets of hate, and limits the function if the law to cases where hate was actually a motive.


Really? So age is one of the nine protected classes? Who hates babies? Who hates 90 year old grandmas? Perhaps you need to choose a better class of friends.

 

No longer a minority.

 

Good, then we agree that your “black, lesbian, teacher” example is not a hate crime, which is what I’ve been saying for 3 hours, also.

Age is an odd addition, unless they are trying to tack on charges for repeated elder abuse or child abuse. What about the other 8 categories? Agree with those?

 

no it doesn’t! That is one of the f’ing problems. The bill states you are guilty of a felony if you:

“… intentionally [intimidate an] individual based in whole or in part on an actual or perceived characteristic of that individual’s [age]”

The only time the statute uses the term “hate” is the title of the act. It does not use the term hate in outlawing any conduct.

 

3 hours ago…

Oh wait, this is one of those masters of the obvious things, right? “Everyone who has red hair is a redhead”. “ Violent criminals, commit both violence and crimes”

 

Uh ... if it's a "hate crime law", by it's title, then doesn't the law itself define what a hate crime is?

 

And again, let me remind me that you were the one claiming that you could give thousands of examples of people excluded from the hate crime law ... then gave zero examples. You were making it sounds like white people, or Christians, couldn't be victims ... which is why I said "everyone who is a victim of a hate crime is covered by this hate crime law. Why wouldn't they be?"

So let's not take things out of context.

 

I think you're conflating "groups" with "categories" (for lack of a better term). The nine "categories" listed aren't groups. Christians, Jews, Muslims... those are groups individually. All of them together make up the "religious affiliation" category. In each of the nine categories, EVERYONE is "protected". Everyone has an age, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. I would imagine the 9 that are listed are pretty much the ones where we have seen historical discrimination.
If someone attacked someone else for being a redhead, it wouldn't be a hate crime because violence based on hair color really hasn't been a thing in the past. If for some reason, there started being lots of violence/discrimination towards other based on hair color, then that might be added to the list.

This law is more about the perpetrator than the victim. If the black, lesbian teacher in your example was attacked and it was clear that the attacker did it because she was black, or lesbian, then a hate crime would apply. If for some strange reason they did it because she was a teacher, then no, it wouldn't apply. You use the word "protected" and I don't think that really fits, as everyone is "protected" if they are attacked based on one of the 9 categories. Likewise, no one is "protected" if they are attacked based on any of the other millions of non-listed categories.

 

Your analysis of the bill aligns with mine, for the most part. What we may disagree on, but I’m not sure based upon your post here, is the equality of the application of the law. You and others keep saying everybody is protected by this bill. But nothing could be further from the truth. Nine categories of human characteristics are protected, and the gazillion other categories are excluded. In my example with the teacher, both victims deserve equal protection under the law. One group doesn’t deserve additional protection. It is because one group gets a heightened protection, that I have an objection to the whole scheme.

I’ll leave it at this: Over the last few years I have seen multiple signs in my neighborhood and community that say “love is love” with a gay pride flag. I don’t have any reason to dispute that, but I am shocked that people on here who support that sentiment, aren’t also willing to say hate is hate. If love is love, then hate is hate. In the case of my hypothetical, both victims experienced the same injury, and both victims experienced the same hate, albeit for different reasons. Why should there be a different penalty just because of the nature of the hate coming from the perpetrator. That is unjust.

 

I’m not sure how anyone could be any clearer to a rational, intelligent person. I’m not only identified multiple groups, but I made it very clear that all who are not one of the nine groups is excluded. I gave you a hypothetical involving teachers, showing how one criminal act would fall under the umbrella of this bill, while the other nearly identical criminal act would not. The fact that you can’t comprehend that is on you. I’m about to put you on ignore because all you keep posting is the same circular argument, or changing the facts and frankly, it’s boring.

 

Again, that’s not the way it works. You just keep throwing this stuff out there. Hoping somethings going to stick. You seem smart, why don’t you read it and tell all of us what the definition of a “hate crime” is in a bill which doesn’t even prohibit hate. Lol.