Is it a hate crime?

[Rathji]

If it was eggs, toast, or even hashbrowns, you could make an argument that it wasnt a hate crime.

But bacon is another story as it is clearly targeting their beliefs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I just picture a few 15-year-old kids cooking up this silly prank and having some yucks about it. Charging them with a hate crime would be totally overboard.

If it was some a-hole racists that are trying to "send a message" to the congregation (or whatever it's called), then hate crime those mo-foes.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a "silly prank" based wholly on religious beliefs

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by valo403

That doesn't change the fact that it's a "silly prank" based wholly on religious beliefs

How does that change anything? Stupid pranks targeting worthless superstitions should not be considered hate crimes.

[Rathji]

So hate crimes are ok if the person you are targeting is stupid in your opinion?

That shouldn't cause any problems...

[polak]

I bet jew did nazi that coming

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So hate crimes are ok if the person you are targeting is stupid in your opinion?

That shouldn't cause any problems...

How is it a hate crime? Sounds like petty vandalism to me.

Spray painting racial slurs on a wall is a hate crime.

calling for the death of an individual or group based on their race/beliefs is a hate crime.

would drawing a picture of Muhammed and pasting it to a light post outside of a Mosque be a hate crime?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

How is it a hate crime? Sounds like petty vandalism to me.

Spray painting racial slurs on a wall is a hate crime.

calling for the death of an individual or group based on their race/beliefs is a hate crime.

would drawing a picture of Muhammed and pasting it to a light post outside of a Mosque be a hate crime?

Just to clarify, hate crimes should involve one of the following, in your opinion:

- Death or threats of death if the person is being targeting in a manner which is based on their belief or race.

- Vandalism, but only for racially based hate crimes, but not where the target is a religiously based one?

[polak]

Anne Frankly, I would pay to see the reaction of the people who got offended by this prank if they ever discover the internet.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Just to clarify, hate crimes should involve one of the following, in your opinion:

- Death or threats of death if the person is being targeting in a manner which is based on their belief or race.

- Vandalism, but only for racially based hate crimes, but not where the target is a religiously based one?

Religion should not be a protected class.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by polak

I bet jew did nazi that coming

Originally Posted by polak

Anne Frankly, I would pay to see the reaction of the people who got offended by this prank if they ever discover the internet.

[holden]

Where do we stop prosecuting actions by people because it offends someones silly superstitious beliefs? There are many things in society religious people could justify as offensive or 'hateful'.

This is vandalism. Why have separate laws? Where the difference should lie is when considering the sentencing for the dummies who did it.

[1stLand]

When people dress up as their favorite Jersey Shore character, I beleive that is a hate crime towards Italians.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I think we'd all be better off by watching the South Park episode that addresses hate crimes. Brilliant episode.


On a somewhat related note, I heard an interesting story from Jon Lovitz about a "hate crime" against a Jewish family in LA. Some kids were driven by their mother over to this Jewish girl's house and the kids proceeded to paint swasticas and other assorted anti Jewish slogans on her front step. The catch is that they did it with Syrup (sorry I can't confirm if it was maple or Aunt Jemima) and since syrup isn't permanent it wasn't classified as a hate crime but some lesser crime like "inciting hate" or some such BS. Anyway good ole Mr Lovitz called these kids out on Twitter. Stupid disctinction though, hey?

[Rathji]

What are you talking about "protected class?"

Do you mean legally people should be allowed to harass, commit acts of vandalism or violence against broad groups of people based on their beliefs if those beliefs involve something that you don't believe in?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What are you talking about "protected class?"

Do you mean legally people should be allowed to harass, commit acts of vandalism or violence against broad groups of people based on their beliefs if those beliefs involve something that you don't believe in?

Obviously he doesn't mean that.


By protected class I think he means why is religion on the same level as race, nationality, age, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability as a protected class under hate crime laws.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

By protected class I think he means why is religion on the same level as race, nationality, age, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability as a protected class under hate crime laws.

And I agree with him. Jedi is a recognized religion in England but I would argue the idea of sending me to jail for showing up there and spouting hate-speech about fictional characters is asinine. If I wrecked their temple, it's vandalism.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by holden

Where do we stop prosecuting actions by people because it offends someones silly superstitious beliefs? There are many things in society religious people could justify as offensive or 'hateful'.

This is vandalism. Why have separate laws? Where the difference should lie is when considering the sentencing for the dummies who did it.

Umm, that's pretty much where it does lie. An act classified as a hate crime will allow for greater sentences than one that is not.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Obviously he doesn't mean that.


By protected class I think he means why is religion on the same level as race, nationality, age, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability as a protected class under hate crime laws.

I would guess it's probably because religion is typically one of the major things upon which people base these actions, if not the biggest.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by valo403

Umm, that's pretty much where it does lie. An act classified as a hate crime will allow for greater sentences than one that is not.

That's actually the part of this that I have a problem with. If I get savagely beaten by a roving gang of street thugs they get one set of rules applied.

If it turns out that roving street gang were bunch of homosexuals intent on beating up straight people they have a different set of rules applied.

Assuming my injuries are the same in both scenarios, why the eff would one instance warrant a different sentence than the other?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That's actually the part of this that I have a problem with. If I get savagely beaten by a roving gang of street thugs they get one set of rules applied.

If it turns out that roving street gang were bunch of homosexuals intent on beating up straight people they have a different set of rules applied.

Assuming my injuries are the same in both scenarios, why the eff would one instance warrant a different sentence than the other?

Your injuries don't factor into it, this isn't about compensating the victim, it's about targeting activities that are intended to terrorize and intimidate particular groups in a community. Random crimes happen, that's just the way it is, but when you have groups targeting specific people the impact is much greater.