I believe a pastor being prosecuted as you state is a misunderstanding of this law and the chance of it happening is minimal and the chance of a conviction is zero.  It is more of a scare tactic than reality.

As perception is reality, to defend or appear to defend a person perpetrating hate crimes against any individual is non-Christian, in my opinion. In addition, any minister who in any way leads his congregants to believe the homosexual is somehow less than human and not worthy of protection does not understand God’s commission.

Jesus condemned no one but the religious leaders who thought themselves above the rest.  Do you believe Rabbi Jesus, who preached of love and understanding the Christian unity, would condone not giving special protection to those who need it?

Thank you for responding to my entry into the blog.  I pray everything we say will be out of love and respect for each other and the God we serve.  Please allow me to respond to your insights in multiple postings (your words are in parenthesis):

“Matthew Shepards killers received life without parole.”

The concept of hate crime legislation is to further distinguish the same crime based on motivation.  Currently states have laws concerning the taking of another’s life yet the consequences vary based on extenuating circumstances.  We know these situations as being murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, recklessness, etc.  The “hate crime” label is another classification to be used by law enforcement when warranted.  It further distinguished the criminal act; it does not add more protection.

“So those who practice alternative lifestyle deserve more protection than children or the infirm.”

How is it more protection?  Again, the arguments must stand alone.  Children and the infirmed have the same protection; however, if I harm a child or the infirmed, it is not usually based on what they are (as most hate crimes are distinguished by the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim).  If I were to follow your logic to its logical conclusion, we should repeal the Civil Right Act of 1964.

“Review your states accessory before the fact law. It makes anyone liable who may or may not (that is the question) have influenced someone to do something. It has been used against hate groups, video game manufacturers, tobacco companies, and even bartenders.”
Is it your argument that these individuals have no responsibility for their actions which, by the way, are usually civil and not criminal?

“State hate crimes have prosecuted Atlantans for protesting public nudity, Pennsylvanians for preaching, California social worker for using the term “Natural family”, Canadian pastor for using Romans chapter 1 in a sermon, Germany children removed from their homes.”

Could you please supply me with some authoritative reference material for these actions?  It is not that I doubt what you say; I just believe some of these actions may be taken out of context.

“You haven’t read Heinlein or Orwell have you?”

I have read both, quite extensively.  And guess what, they wrote science fiction…not prophecy.  If you believe there is some sort of connection between hate crime legislation and these science fiction writings of these two fine authors, may I suggest a more fact-based book, the Bible.  In there you will find the truth about just about everything, from hate and love, justice and social responsibility, and what our future actually holds!

God bless you.

And you may argue, gays choose to be gay, blacks don’t chose to be black. Well evidence mounts to show sexuality is not choice. But legally that doesn’t matter. Religion is protected by hate crime legislation and religion is a choice, so it doesn’t matter if sexuality is choice or not.

You can chose to think and say what you want to think and say about gays. That is your right. But, likewise, gays should be protected from being attacked and killed for being gay. Hate crimes are terrorism against a class of people. A person killed for being gay sends a message of fear to the whole group.

Just because you don’t support homosexuality doesn’t mean you need to leave gays open to violence. Protect them because they are human life, not because they are gay. You can even hate homosexuals but that doesn’t mean you need to oppose this legislation.

Your rights are already protected. Ask a constitutional scholar. There is no thought crime anywhere.

How do you define attacked for being gay? 

In conversation, would you consider someone telling a gay person that homosexuality is a sin a form of attack?

We aren’t talking about conversation. Disrupting gatherings with a bullhorn is no more acceptable from the ‘Christian’ community than it is from anyone else. Would you accept that others should be able to disrupt YOUR services with their message of THEIR religion?

Yet another red herring to distract from the blatantly discriminatory position of the SBC.

For my two cents, a discussion is fine, a verbal attack is not.

Yelling “You are queer, you are a sinner, you deserve to die and burn in hell” is a lot different than “In my opinion, homosexual sex is a sin”.