A bill that would expand the hate crime law cleared a big hurdle when it sailed through the House of Representatives earlier this month.If it passes the Senate, and is signed by the President, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability would join race, religion and national origin as protected classes under the current law.
So why did Rep. Roy Blunt oppose the expansion of the law?
Part of Blunt's argument is detailed in a weekend editorial in Investor's Business Daily:
"Republican House Whip Roy Blunt cites the precedent of the 11 people arrested in 2004 in Philadelphia simply for holding signs and reading passages out of the Bible during a gay-pride festival.
"According to Blunt, their charges included "possessions of instruments of crime," meaning a bullhorn, "ethnic" intimidation (the reading of Bible passages) and "inciting a riot" by reading those passages aloud. They were charged with three separate felonies and five misdemeanors. The ACLU was nowhere to be found."
Media Matters disputes Blunt's account, saying that the protesters were arrested for disobeying police.
But Blunt's central argument against the expansion of the hate crime bill is that the law goes too far (or could be interpreted as such) to penalize free speech. What's wrong with vocalizing your opinion that homosexuals are immoral? Or that being gay is a sin? Is that truly hate speech? Or is it a belief that should be protected?
1 comment:
I'm glad Blunt is being cautious with this bill. It would be terrible to see certain groups getting into legal trouble for speaking against certain issues. I realize I do not know the full Philadelphia story cited in the post. Were the people breaking the law or not? I do not know. I do know, though, that there is pure inconsistency! For instance, where was the ACLU to stand up for those 11 who were arrested for their free speech?
Here is an interesting tidbit---There was a group protesting and holding signs at CBC here in Springield a few months ago. They were trying to speak against CBC's policy on the "gay" issue. So people can protest and speak against those who see being gay as a sin, but vice versa is a crime or evil deed??? People can have differing opinions on what is right or wrong, but please be consistent the whole way!!!
Post a Comment