RECENT  POSTS:  » Because when am I not calling up Fox News personalities to do my bidding? » Anti-equality conservative admits GLAAD CAP is 'smart' and 'effective' » You know what's not presidential? Like at all? » Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized » Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions' » Photo: Supreme Court's Thomas poses with NOM's cofounder, major equality opponent » Wait, even NewsMax is now pushing back against anti-gay spin?!  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/03/2007

FRC confused as to gaggings with which 'hate' bill deals

by Jeremy Hooper

This is the image that the Family Research Council has chosen to highlight their reaction to today's historic hate crimes vote:

 Img Activedit 000510Ff-54A7-163A-B49C1014Ac14F856

So since this legislation would simply work to curb bias-motivated violence, clearly they must be trying to depict a man who has been bound and gagged by an armed robber who has targeted him on the basis of his skin color, sexual orientation, or religion. Right? What else could it be? The legislation doesn't prevent anyone from speaking beliefs, so clearly that's not what they're going for. So yea -- It looks to us like they are showing a victim who will somehow benefit from these enhanced protections.

Bravo, FRC.

Wait, what's that you say? They actually ARE still working the fallacy that this legislation poses a threat to free speech, and so this image IS meant to convey a religious person who is no longer allowed to speak his anti-gay beliefs for fear they'll be carted off to jail? Oh. Well in that case: No need to gag this writer, as the religious right's deliberate attempts to misrepresent this legislation have done that ably enough!!

'Hate Crimes' Legislation Is Unconstitutional [FRC]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

FRC is also blowing smoke as SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of hate crimes laws in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993). Its decision was unanimous and included 5 of the current Justices on the Court. If FRC wants to take the position that ALL hate crimes laws are unconstitutional I could at least respect their consistency, but in this case it would appear that as long as their axe isn't being gored and it involves gays it's a different matter.

For more on Wisconsin v. Mitchell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell

Posted by: John | May 4, 2007 6:32:34 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails