Pat Robertson Is Not Happy About Hate Crimes Bill
Another freedom has been taken away from him:
Yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network, televangelist Pat Robertson aired a segment slamming President Obama for signing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. Extending hate crimes protection to the gay and transgendered community, Robertson argued, was a targeted attack on homophobic Christians like himself. Robertson said the new law is the latest example of a “noose” tightening around “the necks of Christians.”
Apparently, Robertson’s definition of freedom is the ability to physically attack and injure gay and lesbian persons:
Assuming that people who believe Pat Robertson have the capacity to read, here is the actual language from the statute that addresses “hate crimes” committed on the basis of sexual orientation (and other categories):
Whoever . . . willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. . . [shall be liable for criminal penalties stated in this legislation].
So, in order to believe Robertson, one must also believe that Christians, by definition, want to “willfully” cause “bodily injury” to people in the listed categories. Robertson’s grotesque logic also requires the listener to ignore the fact that the law also protects Christians — and everyone else — from religion-based violence.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
72 Responses to “Pat Robertson Is Not Happy About Hate Crimes Bill”
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes start coming down? Or this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes start coming down? Or this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes start coming down? Or this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes start coming down? Or this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seemed to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we hate crimes start coming down? Or this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
We've gone over this debate again and again and again, going back to Holly in Cinncinnati's post back in May 2007. It was a very spirited debate back then, and we must have had at least 10 very spirited debates on hate crimes legislation since then. I'm willing to do so again, but I'm beginning to doubt whether anyone is really getting anything out of these debates, as they seem to rehash the same points over and over again.
I personally oppose hate crimes legislation, but I feel that I have at least some understanding of where supporters of hate crime legislation are coming from considering that I was once a staunch supporter of such legislation (and as a civil libertarian, continue to be a supporter of most gay rights).
I have offered my comprehensive 4 1/2 page position on this subject, both here at TMV and over at my blog. I'd be willing to clarify any part of my position that others find confusing, but it's probably a waste of time and space to repost the entire post here.
So I'll simply ask supporters of hate crimes legislation: What does this legislation accomplish? How do gays or lesbians or any other discriminated group benefit from this legislation? And when I say benefit, I'm talking about tangible benefits that can be measured empirically? Does this legislation offer any tangible benefits for gays or lesbians? Should we expect hate crimes to start coming down? Or is this simply a bunch of “feel good” legislation passed by a bunch of armchair politicians who are merely pandering to gays and lesbians?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: Pat Robertson Is Not Happy About Hate Crimes Bill: Another freedom has been taken away from him:
Yesterday on the C… http://bit.ly/2UliTO...
The law always treats certain crimes more seriously than others — because of the harrm that they cause to larger groups of people. For example, stealing 20 bucks in a mugging at gunpoint has different penalties than stealing 20 bucks during an attempted armed bank robbery. The same amount of money, same behavior, highly different penalty structure.
Certain murders are more likely to receive the death penalty than others; in fact, the Supreme Court (and thus every state) requires that juries list “aggravating” factors that led them to impose the death penalty. So, one murder may get a life sentence, while another gets the death penalty. Why? Because the aggravating factors are seen as presenting a greater harm to society. The law in every state treats “cop-killing” as death eligible. Mutilation is an aggravating factor. Killing a very young person is an aggravating factor. Killing more than one person is an aggravating factor, etc.
Similarly, killing people because of religion, sexuality, etc., causes harms that extend beyond one person and that individual's immediate community. Others who share the characteristic are chilled due to the crimre. There are tons of psychological and criminal law literature on this subject. Even the Supreme Corut has ruled on the issue — in a case validating an enhanced penalty for a black man who selected a white victim due to race. See Mitchell v Wisconsin.
In many communities law enforcement officials still do not take the plight of gay victims seriously. Until they do, we need a hate crimes bill.
I compare it to the fight for civil rights in the deep South during the 60's. Everyone was supposedly equal under the law, but in practical terms, it was only enforced for white victims. Black lynchings and other crimes were not investigated fully or prosecuted fully unless they were retried under federal law. The murderers of Medgar Evers, Emmett Till and many others were acquitted by all white juries.