With all of the suffering and people in need in Haiti, homeless individuals and children in this country without adequate nutrition and health care, one would think that alleged Christians would not be wasting money on frivolous lawsuits (oops, I forgot that the Haitians are mostly black and, therefore, don't count as human with certain far right "Godly Christians"). But such is not the case with some Michigan wingnuts who, despite so many more important issues, have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder challenging the federal Hate Crimes Law enacted last year. These supposed Christians apparently feel why feed the hungry and clothe the naked when you can persecute other humans. What is equally amazing is that they make no pretense of hiding the fact that they want to punish other citizens who fail to adhere to their religious beliefs. So much for religious freedom for all. Here are some highlights from wingnut news page CNSNews.com:*
A conservative civil liberties group is challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The new law, attached to a defense authorization bill that President Obama signed on October 28, 2009, makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center says it elevates people engaged in deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federal law.
*
The lawsuit naming U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of three pastors and the president of the American Family Association of Michigan. All of the plaintiffs “take a strong public stand against the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to Biblical teaching,” the Law Center said in a news release.
*
“The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy.
*
The lawsuit alleges that the new law violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
*
The Thomas More Law Center describes its mission as defending and promoting “America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.”
*
True to form, the wingnuts ignore the fact that the Hate Crimes Act does NOT criminalize speech - it impacts only violent physical conduct directed at LGBT because of their sexual orientation. Like the majority of the self-righteous, self-congratulatory "Christians" these folks apparently believe that the are exempt for the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness. Hypocrisy and lying seem to be the one constant among Christianists.
1 comment:
I suspect their filing will be thrown out, because they claim certain people are "elevated to protected class status", which is false. Protected class does not refer to certain groups of people, it refers to a classification.
Protected class under the law refers to race, religion, gender, etc, but not any PARTICULAR race, religion, etc.
It is confusing, because when we hear the word "class", we naturally think of middle class, upper class, working class, etc. But in the legal context, in this area of law, class refers to a classification, such as race, religion, gender, country of origin, etc.
So if the protected class is religion, it is never a case where Baptists are protected, for instance, but not Mormons or Catholics. If you are discriminated against, say, in employment or public accommodation, in order to remain within the law, the discrimination cannot be based on race, religion, etc, and it is often difficult to prove anyway.
If a business bars you from entering because you are wearing a tank top, that is legal, because manner of dress is not a protected class under the law.
So their whole premise is faulty, and distorts the wording and the meaning of the law. The law doesn't change how any particular group is treated, it merely prevents discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It treats all people equally.
This same group has been spreading the lie that this law prohibits hate speech, which it does not.
They can espouse any damned-fool doctrine they want, but they should probably be careful not to shout something about the victim's religion, race, etc, when violently assaulting them. That is when the law kicks in.
You will often hear the falsehood that "the law doesn't protect me, as a heterosexual white male, because I am not in any protected class". This is nonsense. I can give you plenty of examples of African Americans being prosecuted for a bias-related crime because at the time they were assaulting a white person they yelled about hating white people or they don't think white people should be in their neighborhood. Several recent incidents like this in Seattle, here is one:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/184568.asp
and another:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/193234.asp
Post a Comment