1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So burning a flag is a hate crime? Let's start applying this equally.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by old_tony, Jul 9, 2015.

  1. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    You're thinking of doing it by soliciting. You always can decline once you've solicited.
     
  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Motives are not exactly the same. One is hating love. The other is hating hatred.
     
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Wanting to pay to have sex isn't a crime. Offering to pay to have sex is.
     
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Who wants to pay to have sex? Wouldn't you want to have sex without paying -- then resort to paying when your charms don't work?
     
  5. Vombatus

    Vombatus Well-Known Member

    That's called having to pay for dinner.
     
    Ace likes this.
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Allow me to amend ... "Being willing to pay for sex isn't a crime. Offering to pay for sex is."
     
    Ace likes this.
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    KEVIN
    I don't pay for sex.

    BLACK HOOKER
    Oh, you think if you get some
    girlfriend, or maybe a wife, you
    ain't gonna pay? Oh, you'll pay. But
    you won't ever be sure
    you're gonna get it. Now with me,
    you pay, but you get it, and you
    get it good!
     
    doctorquant likes this.
  8. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    True since the first humans crawled up from the primordial ooze: In one way or another, you're always paying for sex.
     
  9. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Change the hypothetical from property crime to physical violence then.
    A guy with a Confederate flag sticker on his truck encounters a group of gay men at a bar. They see the sticker and, without provocation, start berating him with insults of "racist" and "bigot" and "homophobe." They all spend a couple of hours in the bar, on opposite sides of the room and never speak to each other. Later on, the gay men, fueled by rage and alcohol, decide they need to do something about this intolerant asshole. When the first guy goes to leave, they confront him in the parking lot, taunt him with more cries of "racist," and "bigot," and "homophobe," and beat him up to the point he spends two weeks in the hospital.
    That's a textbook definition of a hate crime. Someone was beaten solely because someone else didn't like the way they think. And yet, by your definition, it's somehow justifiable because the aggressors were "hating hatred" and avenging past wrongs that might or might not have been inflicted by or upon any of the individuals involved.
    Hate is hate. You can't give one group a suit of legal armor by excusing it as, "well, the other guy had it coming."
    If you're going to give one group protected status on that level, we're no better off than we were when the shoe was on the other foot 60 years ago.
     
  10. RubberSoul1979

    RubberSoul1979 Active Member

    [QUOTE Welcome to 1939 Germany.[/QUOTE]
    Dude, get fucking real.
     
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member


    No, the definition of a hate crime is someone else doesn't like another person for who they are. Not how they think.

    Beating someone up because they are gay is a hate crime because you're beating them up over something they cannot control, their sexuality.

    Beating someone up for being a racist is a crime, but not a hate crime, because you're beating them up over something they can control, their thoughts.
     
  12. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]

    My image of Baron's brain while he was reaching that conclusion.

    I mean ... are you serious? How you think is part of who you are. This guy in the hypothetical can no more help being Southern than someone can help being gay. If he's otherwise being a good citizen, doesn't he have a right to be proud of where he came from the same way gay people have a right to be proud of their sexuality?
    Hate is hate, whether it's hate for the "right" reasons or not. In the hypothetical, maybe the guy was just from Alabama or Mississippi and had Confederate ancestors. Maybe it wasn't his truck, or it had been on there since he bought it used. There's any of 100 scenarios where this guy is anything but a racist. But, since you don't like the image, to you it's OK to give legal protection to someone that their attackers would not get if the shoe were on the other foot. That wasn't justice in the 1950s, and it's not justice now.
    Use the motive to prosecute the crime. The motive should not BE the crime.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page