Let’s go down Memory Lane a bit, shall we?
“Arlington, Va.: Ana, you’re missing the point of the Hate Crimes amendment. Previously, if a black man was attacked for his race in an area where local authorities turned a blind eye, federal law could step in. But if a person was attacked for being gay or transgender, that wasn’t an option. And believe me there are many places in this country where local authorities routinely ignore anti-gay hate crimes.
And for the record, the far right religious fringe most against this update never happen to mention that religion was already a protected class in existing law.
Ana Marie Cox: Can the federal government step in if local authorities turn a blind eye for someone who is murdered for wearing white after labor day? “
I love John Waters too, dear.
“I guess my hope is that the federal government have options to step in whenever local authorities miscarry justice — and I have tended to assume that our court system allows for exactly that. I realize the implementation is imperfect, but I worry that creating a special class of victims goes against the ultimate goal of saying all lives, and all people, are equal.”
Uh, no, darling.
You long to return to a world where Teh Ghey knows its place.
That’s been over for quite some time.
“It’s horrible that local authorities ignore crimes against gays. But I want those authorities to be held accountable for ignoring crimes against PEOPLE, who may happen to be gay.
I realize it’s a complicated issue (and I do see the logic of protected classes in general and think sexual orientation belongs there) and it’s possible that Hate Crime laws are the most elegant — or most immediate — solution. But I stand my ground as far as a philosophical objection goes.”
Yeah, we’re hip to that “philosophy.”
“Arlington, Va.: I would be considered a liberal (which is not an insult, by the way) and I’m totally against Hate Crime laws and Hate Speech laws on campuses. I do not want to get into creating legal penalties for thoughts. Yikes! If you beat someone, that is a crime. If you did it because you didn’t like something about them, how does that change things?
Tucker Carlson: Amen. Tell me if you’re interested in starting a Left-Right Coalition Against ThoughtCrimes. I’d join.”
Actually “liberal” is considered and insult, Arlington. In the “Mainstrem” media it’s worse than “nigger.”
Here’s a very mild example of those “thought crimes” you’re so upset about Tuck —
“BOSTON — Two men accused of taunting two other men with homophobic slurs and then assaulting them have been given a trial date, said Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley.
Darren Morgan, 46, and Howard Rice, 50, are charged with assault and battery, disorderly conduct and civil rights violations, said Conley. Both men will appear in Boston Municipal Court on Dec. 10.
The charges are the result of an incident on June 15, according to Boston police. Morgan and Rice were on Washington Street when the victims walked towards them from a bus stop, police said. The pair allegedly began to verbally abuse the two men, targeting them on the assumption they were gay, said police.
The victims tried to avoid the men, but Rice put one of them in a headlock, said Conley.
The man broke free from Rice, and the victims ran into a nearby restaurant, Conley said. Morgan and Rice followed them in and began to physically assault them, said Conley. Boston police responded, and arrested the two men, police said.
Morgan and Rice were initially arraigned on June 16 of the assault and disorderly conduct charges, Conley said. Rice was held on $500 cash bail, and Morgan was released on his own recognizance, he said.
After a police investigation, both men were rearraigned on Aug. 19 on the civil rights violation charge, said Conley.
The two men have pleaded not guilty.”
Happily the victims lived.
Of course not as lavishly entitled a life as yours Tuck.