President to Sign Hate Crimes Law Tomorrow
This is a historic milestone. I'll let ABC News tell it (even though their spelling and punctuation are weird):
All right, this is a big one, but it is just the beginning of the larger battle against bigotry. There are several other initiatives at the federal level that need to be taken to completion, to at least assure fair treatment of LGBT citizens, and lots of work to do at the state and local levels. Public opinion will come along, the new generation already gets it.
Eleven years after Matthew Shepard’s death, President Obama will sign the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill into law during a White House signing ceremony Wednesday afternoon, White House officials confirm.
The long-sought hate crimes provision is part of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill and will extend federal hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
Matthew Shepard a gay twenty-one year old college student was brutally. killed in 1998 Some of the Shepard family will be in attendance at the White House signing on Wednesday. Afterward there will be a reception with gay rights groups as well as civil rights leader to commemorate the occasion.
The main thrust of the bill is defense policy, including authorizing $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD Authorization bill also strips money from the Pentagon budget for the controversial F-22 Raptor. The Pentagon and the White House wanted to stop production, but appropriators had balked at costing jobs in their states. Obama to Sign Hate Crimes Bill Wednesday
All right, this is a big one, but it is just the beginning of the larger battle against bigotry. There are several other initiatives at the federal level that need to be taken to completion, to at least assure fair treatment of LGBT citizens, and lots of work to do at the state and local levels. Public opinion will come along, the new generation already gets it.
posted by JimK at 4:32 PM
34 Comments:
"President Obama will sign the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes"
Odd name for the bill since the notion that Matthew Shepard's murder was motivated by bias against deviant sexual desire is mostly a media myth.
"Public opinion will come along, the new generation already gets it."
Gets what? They are tolerant of those with same gender sexual attraction but our society has been since the 70s.
I don't think they support special protection for gays at the expense of the rest of the population.
He signed it.
He'll never win another election
As the President signs away the right to free speech, persecutions have begun:
"According to a statement from the Chiefs, Larry Johnson has been asked to stay away from team activities while the NFL and Kansas City's front office conduct an investigation into his recent statements. All of this despite an apology from Johnson on Tuesday.
The Kansas City Chiefs and the National Football League are continuing to investigate the alleged comments made by Larry Johnson. Until that review is complete, the Chiefs have instructed Larry to refrain from practicing with the Chiefs or participating in other team activities. A decision regarding Larry's status will be made once the investigation has concluded.
Johnson allegedly referred to a group of reporters in a homophobic manner and made similar comments on Twitter."
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and at least 40 Democrats reportedly will vote against a rule designed to govern debate on health-care reform, unless that rule allows an amendment to insert language similar to the Hyde Amendment.
The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions within the Health and Human Services appropriations bill.
If the Democrat leadership refuses to allow the pro-life amendment to be offered, those 40 Democrats, along with Republicans, will prevent the health-care bill from coming to the floor for a vote.
What a moron.
It's the NFL and the KC Chiefs front office who are investigating Larry Johnson's hateful remarks, not any US law enforcement agencies.
Johnson's gay slurs were made before President Obama signed the bill into law.
The anonymous who claimed that Shepard's murder was not a hate based on his sexual orientation - the reason why no one is arguing with you is because arguing with you is like arguing with someone who feels that the earth is flat.
Why bother when you ignore the obvious. One disputed 20/20 special doesn't make your case.
And about that football player, I know some of us miss the "good old days" when we could say lgbt slurs with impugnity. LOL
The other anonymous called u a moron but I prefer the Bugs Bunny classification - "what a maroon!"
"The anonymous who claimed that Shepard's murder was not a hate based on his sexual orientation - the reason why no one is arguing with you is because arguing with you is like arguing with someone who feels that the earth is flat."
I thought it was because I wasn't arguing the earth is flat.
Shepard wan't murdered because he was gay. Had these guys killed any other gays? Of course not.
Was he the first gay they'd met? Of course not.
The media wanted a story and this is the first one they could blow up. Why haven't we heard a bunch of other stories like this if this is a problem requiring a law?
Ever hear how Shepard was tied up to a post like he was crucified martyr?
Didn't happen. He was sitting on the ground when found.
"And about that football player, I know some of us miss the "good old days" when we could say lgbt slurs with impugnity."
I even remember when people could spell words like "impunity".
I don't think the reporters he was referring to were gay. He was just using it as an epithet.
Last I heard, we were still allowed to view homosexuality negatively.
A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a "One nation under God" button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.
"I've worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God," Trevor Keezor said Tuesday.
The American flag button Keezer wore in the Florida store since March 2008 says "One nation under God, indivisible."
Earlier this month, he began bringing a Bible to read during his lunch break at the store in the rural town of Okeechobee, about 140 miles north of Miami. That's when he says The Home Depot management told him he would have to remove the button.
Keezer refused, and he was fired on Oct. 23, he said.
The USDailyNews reports:
"...A Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company's dress code.
"This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," Craig Fishel said. "That's not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."
Fishel said Keezer was offered a company-approved pin that said, "United We Stand," but he declined..."
So what do you think, Anon? Would you like it better if the federal government's protections against religious discrimination overruled Home Depot's dress code policy?
no, I don't think the government should be involved at all
your problem is you have liberal lunatic syndrome- you think there should be a law combatting every unpleasantness of life
this guy wore the button for a year without any complaint by management
it only became an issue when started reading the Bible at his lunch break and they realized he was a committed believer
the company's action was an attack on religious belief and should be grounds for a boycott of the store by religious believers of all faiths
Ever hear how Shepard was tied up to a post like he was crucified martyr?
Didn't happen. He was sitting on the ground when found.
What do you know about Anon? Were you there? No, but that won't stop you from spinning your lies.
Aaron Kreifels found Matthew on the fence where his murderers left him. Here's what he reported about what he found:
"...Aaron Kreifels, another university student, was out mountain biking when he saw Shepard. “Halloween was coming up, so I thought it was just a Halloween gag,” Kreifels says. “I was probably 15 feet from him… He was breathing very heavily through his nose. His breathing was sounding terrible.”
Matt Shepard was barely recognizable. Limp and lashed to the fence, he had been beaten an estimated 18 times with the butt of a handgun. His skull was crushed, his face cut repeatedly and covered in blood, except for one cheek, where his tears had washed it clean..."
your problem is you have liberal lunatic syndrome- you think there should be a law combatting every unpleasantness of life
I don't have any problem with Home Depot enforcing its dress code for its employees. You're the one bellyaching about "an attack on religious belief" based on a dress code that says "only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."
Maybe his manager didn't notice the unacceptable pin until he started reading his Bible at lunch.
a boycott of the store by religious believers
That's not what Keezer and his lawyer are planning to do. They're going to sue Home Depot based on anti-discrimination laws:
"...Keezer's lawyer, Kara Skorupa, said she planned to sue the Atlanta-based company.
"There are federal and state laws that protect against religious discrimination," Skorupa said. "It's not like he was out in the aisles preaching to people."..."
Shepard was indeed tied to the fence but he wasn't tied up erect. He was kind of sitting but slumped on the ground with his back against a fence post.
Not saying the crime wasn't vicious. But the media tried to portray Shepard as a Christ-like figure by concocting a scene that didn't happen.
The crime was denounced by everyone. The perpetrators were convicted and sentenced. All without a hate crimes law.
There is no reason to believe they attacked him solely because he was gay.
In the Florida case, you asked me what I thought the government should do and I said I don't favor government intervention. I prefer individuals boycott places that attack them.
The bias is technically illegal under religious discrimination laws, however. When management says he can wear a button that says "United We Stand" but not "One Nation Under God", there's only one difference.
he wasn't tied up erect. He was kind of sitting but slumped on the ground with his back against a fence post.
Yeah, he was in a coma that he never woke up from, which is probably about as far from erect as you can get.
There is no reason to believe they attacked him solely because he was gay.
Nobody said the attack was solely because he was gay. Unless you're talking about the defense's "gay panic defense."
When management says he can wear a button that says "United We Stand" but not "One Nation Under God", there's only one difference.
Right, and who noted the difference and dictated the dress code for Home Depot employees? Home Depot management.
"Yeah, he was in a coma that he never woke up from, which is probably about as far from erect as you can get."
That's happens to lots of mugging victims. But, it's different from the impression one got form the media.
"Nobody said the attack was solely because he was gay. Unless you're talking about the defense's "gay panic defense.""
What I'm talking about is that it wasn't a hate crime.
"When management says he can wear a button that says "United We Stand" but not "One Nation Under God", there's only one difference.
Right, and who noted the difference and dictated the dress code for Home Depot employees? Home Depot management."
Yeah, they only approve buttons that say everything his said except one thing: God.
It's religiophobia, plain and simple.
It's an acquiesence in the secular humanist idea that any mention of God is offensive.
Until the policy changes, stay away Home Depot.
Hooray for "religiophobia" (couldn't find that word in Webster's, but I'll use it anyway because it was created by our beloved "Anonymous")...reminds me of the early settlers and founders of this great nation, many fleeing from the repression and destructiveness of religious-based societies.
WE could use a little of that spirit in this country today...before the religionist taliban loonies impose their intolerant views on everybody else!
Millions of Americans do not believe in or accept your interpretation of God, Anonymous.
Something about "Do unto others..." comes to mind.
Socrates
It's religiophobia, plain and simple.
They don't allow buttons that say "Allah" or "Budda" or "Vishnu" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster."
I bet they don't allow buttons that mention John McCain or Barack Obama either. What are you going to call that, politiphobia?
"WE could use a little of that spirit in this country today...before the religionist taliban loonies impose their intolerant views on everybody else!"
I see. Uttering "God" is intolerant.
Can you get any more warped than that?
"Millions of Americans do not believe in or accept your interpretation of God, Anonymous.
Something about "Do unto others..." comes to mind."
Wasn't much interpretation in this button, just a general acknowledgement of God.
So you think Jesus meant "Don't talk about God because you wouldn't want anyone else talking about God"?
Can you get any more warped than that?
"WE could use a little of that spirit in this country today...before the religionist taliban loonies impose their intolerant views on everybody else!"
I see. Uttering "God" is intolerant.
Can you get any more warped than that?
"Millions of Americans do not believe in or accept your interpretation of God, Anonymous.
Something about "Do unto others..." comes to mind."
Wasn't much interpretation in this button, just a general acknowledgement of God.
So you think Jesus meant "Don't talk about God because you wouldn't want anyone else talking about God"?
Can you get any more warped than that?
no, you can't
TTfers are at Warp 9 and headed straight for a black hole
institutions that ban the mention of God don't do well
look at public schools
they've been declining since prayers were removed from the school day
LOL. Prayer has never been removed from schools. All the law says is that teachers and schools can't lead a prayer ergo sponsoring one religion over another. Now the children gathering together in Bible clubs is something totally different.
neither teachers nor student leaders can begin the school day leading the students in a non-denominational prayer
favoring one religion over another wasn't just banned, favoring the idea of religion at all was banned
the idea of God was banned
it was the beginning of the decline of public schools
stats don't lie, it began at this very time
favoring the idea of religion at all was banned
No it wasn't. The First Amendment was upheld "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Leading a public school classroom in any prayer is not "the free exercise thereof," it's "the state leading the exercise of."
stats don't lie
Unless someone tries to say that a correlation proves causation.
"correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause."
anon-B is correct in describing what the Constitution says
the Supreme Court in 1963, however, struck down prayer not just a specific one favoring a certain religion or denomination
at least, that's how schools have interpretted the ruling
favoring the idea of religion has been effectively banned
there is a cause and effect relationship between the removal of an acknowledgement of God and the decline in the academic quality of schools
thanks for tacitly agreeing the correlation exists, btw
Nice try at spinning more fiction but I didn't tacitly agree to anything except to discuss the definition of correlation. The fact is that correlation does not imply or prove causation.
There have been plenty of other things going on that have led to a decline in our public schools -- like that "decades of GOP rule" you like to crow about with leaders like Reagan who promised in his 1980 campaign to eliminate the Department of Education.
favoring one religion over another wasn't just banned, favoring the idea of religion at all was banned
The Constitution doesn't say anything about favoring one religion over the other, but it does state unequivocally that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Leading prayer in public schools respects the establishment of religion, which is in violation of the Constitution and therefore was banned.
"favoring the idea of religion at all was banned"
you keep discussing the Constitution correctly but then act as if you disagree with the above statement I made
regardless of why, the favorable mention of belief in God by schools is forbidden
this led to a decline in the academic quality of the school, which began long before Reagan became President
the nation's kids will be educated better if public schools are eliminated and parents are given vouchers to provide the education they choose for their children
most would choose the best schools and those would be the schools that acknowledge God
by letting parents choose, we provide the best education for the kids, and the nation, without Constitutional problems
"the favorable mention of belief in God by schools is forbidden" (as if God needs some sort of cheerleading squad).
Mentioning God in any school is not forbidden (shows how much you know about school curriculum which often offer a course in the history of religion). However, proselytizing about YOUR particular religious beliefs is not allowed (unless, of course your progeny is a student in a parochial school where brain-washing is an integral part of the curriculum).
You are not forbidden to choose such a school for your children. Asking for the public dole to support a particular institution's religious beliefs is contrary to the Constitution.
"Mentioning God in any school is not forbidden (shows how much you know about school curriculum which often offer a course in the history of religion)."
I never said that. I said FAVORABLE mention by the school is forbidden.
"However, proselytizing about YOUR particular religious beliefs is not allowed (unless, of course your progeny is a student in a parochial school where brain-washing is an integral part of the curriculum)."
Actually, proselytizing is only forbidden in public school by the school. Student to student or teacher to teacher proselytizing in public schools is a constitutionally protected activity. In private schools, there is freedom form governmental repression.
"You are not forbidden to choose such a school for your children. Asking for the public dole to support a particular institution's religious beliefs is contrary to the Constitution."
Actually, it isn't contrary at all. If the government pays for education for pagans, it should also pay for education for religious families too. Otherwise, they're prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Student to student or teacher to teacher proselytizing in public schools is a constitutionally protected activity.
In some cases, that's true, but there are limits on such activity as follows:
"As employees of the government, public-school teachers are subject to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and thus required to be neutral concerning religion while carrying out their duties as teachers. That means, for example, that teachers do not have the right to pray with or in the presence of students during the school day.
Outside of their school responsibilities, public-school teachers are free like other citizens to teach or otherwise participate in their local religious community. But teachers must refrain from using their position in the public school to promote their outside religious activities...
...Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom, students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate..."
pretty meaningless statement as usual, anon-B
yeah, you have freedom of speech as long as you don't tie someone up and force them to listen
actually, you still have the right of free speech and free religion, you just don't have the right to tie someone up
my statement:
"Student to student or teacher to teacher proselytizing in public schools is a constitutionally protected activity."
is completely true
when you say:
"the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate..."
you are insulting religious people much like I would be insulting gay people if I said, yes you have the right to eat at the same restaurants as straights but you don't have the right to commit sodomy at your table
think about it
when you're not watching Family Feud reruns
And, "Anonymous", when will it be possible to tear yourself away from those Jerry Springer reruns?
Your ego and delusional thinking that somehow you are better than others, especially those who don't agree with your rants and snarky attacks on TTFers here, certainly would qualify you to be a featured "guest" on the Springer show!
when you say:
"the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate..."
you are insulting religious people
Anon's argument is with the writers of A Teacher's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools , namely the good folks over at the Freedom Forum best known as the creators of the Newseum. The text Anon finds so offensive is found under the heading "Religious Expression of Students, Item 13. May students express religious views in school?" The answer is yes, as long as they are not disruptive and as long as the students they are speaking with are "willing student listeners."
I'm almost shocked that Anon would compare public school prayer and proselytizing to restaurant dining room sodomy, a new low even for Anon. But then I realize it's just another clear demonstration of our anonymous internet troll's intent to be as creepy and offensive about LGBT people as Linda Blair was in her role in The Exorcist, the religious movie Anon was apparently obsessing about in the wee hours of last night.
Post a Comment
<< Home