Who needs hate crimes protections?

The US House of Representatives just passed hate crimes legislation that would extend hate crimes protections to be based on sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to current protections for race, religion, color, and national origin. It still has to go through the Senate and then face veto by you know who.

The thing that really blows me away is that people are actually against this, and that those people happen to call themselves Chrisitians. Now, if folks have a problem with the idea of hate crimes protections in general, eh, I would be happy to discuss that. But the idea that some groups of people should get protections while other groups (groups which happen to experience a disproportionate amount of hate crimes) should not is completely ridiculous. As it happens, the religious right is coming out en force against hate crimes protections for lgbt people. I linked this article about this in an earlier post.

It seems the argument has something to do with first amendment rights. They say that they want to be able to anything they want about the “homosexuals” in their churches without the fear of getting arrested. Well, this legislation will not impinge on that right. They will still be constitutionally able to spew whatever anti-gay speech they want (from their pulpits or in the street), as long as they aren’t committing a crime against an lgbt person or their property while they are saying it.

Maybe those who are against this legislation have a sense of how closely bias and violence are tied. First thing you know after lgbt people have hate crimes protections, society is going to start thinking anti-lgbt hate speech isn’t so hot either. Wouldn’t that be terrible. To think that we queers deserve rights and respect just like the rest of you. Definitely a slippery slope from punishing gay-bashing to gays thinking they can just walk around openly on the street then who knows what could happen (I’m sure it would be really bad though).

Related YAR posts

If you found this post interesting, you might like to read these posts as well:

4 Responses to “Who needs hate crimes protections?”

  1. Skylark Says:

    Would pastors be arrested for saying it was a sin for people from different races to marry? Would parishioners get carted off in a paddywagon when they say “A woman’s place is in the home,” and “A woman should be submissive to her husband”? Or promoting tighter border security? Or saying any non-Christian is going to Hell?

    These things happen regularly, especially the second and fourth. I’ve yet to hear of anyone being arrested for saying such things in the U.S. And yet, those are examples of “Christian speech” on categories of people already protected by hate crimes legislation.

    Why would anyone jump to thinking that speech against homosexuals would be prosecuted in a way that speech against women’s rights and ethnic populations isn’t? I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theorists, right-wing or left.

  2. Katie Says:

    Hey Skylark,

    yeah, it seems ridiculous doesn’t it. Actually, gender isn’t currently protected. I failed to mention that it would also be included with the new addition if this bill passes (which is unlikely since The Decider is planning to veto it if it gets near his desk).

    I just stumbled on this item as I was reading blogs when I should have been working: Who is it OK to hate?

  3. Coming Out Strong Blog Archive » Who needs hate crimes protections? Says:

    […] I posted this first bit a little while ago here at young.anabaptistradicals.org but I’m adding more at the end to update the situation. […]

  4. somasoul Says:

    No one needs hate crime protections.

    Hate crime=thought crime.

Leave a Reply

Note: Please take the time to edit your comments for spelling, punctuation, succinct communication and paragraph breaks.