How far the developed world has come; and yet

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,764
Role
Diaper Lover
So I sit here reading this article about an old murder and its impact on further "Hate Crime Laws", and honestly I'm kinda surprised; It says five states (including Wyoming) dont have hate crime laws at all, 14 dont protect peoples Sexual Orientation, and in 27 you can legally be fired for being gay.

Who knew even some of the States in The United States are behind in such a way.

One of my core principles is I don't judge people and hate people just for being different, I will judge people based on WHO they are and HOW they behave; I don't care about who a person wants to sleep/be in a relationship with, or anything of that nature.

I think above all else, killing people for being different is an awful thing and I think they should get punished as bad as possible for it.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
So I sit here reading this article about an old murder and its impact on further "Hate Crime Laws", and honestly I'm kinda surprised; It says five states (including Wyoming) dont have hate crime laws at all, 14 dont protect peoples Sexual Orientation, and in 27 you can legally be fired for being gay.

Who knew even some of the States in The United States are behind in such a way.

One of my core principles is I don't judge people and hate people just for being different, I will judge people based on WHO they are and HOW they behave; I don't care about who a person wants to sleep/be in a relationship with, or anything of that nature.

I think above all else, killing people for being different is an awful thing and I think they should get punished as bad as possible for it.
These laws dont exist because in most those states there has been no reason to pass such laws. Not refering to it being ok but more that this had never become an issue that would come up. Most us states pass laws as they become relavant most these issues were not relavant prior to modern times.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,764
Role
Diaper Lover
These laws dont exist because in most those states there has been no reason to pass such laws. Not refering to it being ok but more that this had never become an issue that would come up. Most us states pass laws as they become relavant most these issues were not relavant prior to modern times.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
You mean Irrelevant as in "not necessary" (because the people living in those states aren't hateful being, full of malice), or irrelevant just because "gay rights" weren't considered a huge thing many decades ago?

Either way I don't get why people have to be so hateful because of things that don't define WHO a person is, they are basically just "parts" of that person; I hate people that act like people should worship them; regardless of gender, nationality, skin color, religion, Sexuality, etc.

I believe in a thing called HUMAN DECENCY, I will treat anyone with courtesy, decency, and maybe even respect (but I also believe respect should be earned, some people prove they don't deserve respect), until something goes wrong to make me mad (which has to be a bad character trait like narcissism or bad behavior like acting like you are superior to someone else just because)
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
You mean Irrelevant as in "not necessary" (because the people living in those states aren't hateful being, full of malice), or irrelevant just because "gay rights" weren't considered a huge thing many decades ago?

Either way I don't get why people have to be so hateful because of things that don't define WHO a person is, they are basically just "parts" of that person; I hate people that act like people should worship them; regardless of gender, nationality, skin color, religion, Sexuality, etc.

I believe in a thing called HUMAN DECENCY, I will treat anyone with courtesy, decency, and maybe even respect (but I also believe respect should be earned, some people prove they don't deserve respect), until something goes wrong to make me mad (which has to be a bad character trait like narcissism or bad behavior like acting like you are superior to someone else just because)
Right in a way, contrary to belief most those areas never had a problem with these issues up untill recently. "Hate crimes" were charged as regular crimes, firing over sexual orientation was labeled as basic sexual harrassment. There was not a need for additional laws because it was assumed they fell under the jurisdiction of the existing laws.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,764
Role
Diaper Lover
Right in a way, contrary to belief most those areas never had a problem with these issues up untill recently. "Hate crimes" were charged as regular crimes, firing over sexual orientation was labeled as basic sexual harrassment. There was not a need for additional laws because it was assumed they fell under the jurisdiction of the existing laws.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Yeah, I still think there is something EXTRA wrong with people that would murder someone because of some perceived difference in the criminal and the victim (such as any of the number of things that constitutes a Hate Crime)
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Yeah, I still think there is something EXTRA wrong with people that would murder someone because of some perceived difference in the criminal and the victim (such as any of the number of things that constitutes a Hate Crime)
Murder is murder regardless of motive. If you kill someone for giggles are you really that much more sane than someone who kills for skin color??

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,764
Role
Diaper Lover
Murder is murder regardless of motive. If you kill someone for giggles are you really that much more sane than someone who kills for skin color??

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Sane no, but I find it not as bad as someone that kills because of skin color, sexuality, etc.

It's kind of like if you kill someone because you assumed danger (which could have been a factor and you weren't gonna risk it), isn't that not quite as bad as purposely finding a reason to kill someone when you didnt have to?
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Sane no, but I find it not as bad as someone that kills because of skin color, sexuality, etc.

It's kind of like if you kill someone because you assumed danger (which could have been a factor and you weren't gonna risk it), isn't that not quite as bad as purposely finding a reason to kill someone when you didnt have to?
See you are now trying to rationalize murder with self defense. Two very diffrent situations. Black guy breaks into a house person shoots and kills him is no diffrent than a white guy breaking into a house and a person shooting and killing him. Self defense refers to defending yourself from a dangerous situation, race or color plays no part because the other party had to first break a law to put themselves in that situation to begin with.

I'm talking about genuine murder as in someone kills a person because they looked at them wrong. Further how do you determine a hate crime from a serial killer? Both individuals select their targets based on some physical pattern in most cases. Additional charges are worthless because a crime is a crime regardless of motive.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,764
Role
Diaper Lover
Well, I guess to some people hateful ideology doesn't mean anything, but to me it means a lot because someone who would kill based off things that really shouldn't matter that much is much worse than someone without a reason; well to me anyways.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Well, I guess to some people hateful ideology doesn't mean anything, but to me it means a lot because someone who would kill based off things that really shouldn't matter that much is much worse than someone without a reason; well to me anyways.
And that is why the justice system is broken and biased. So by your own words defending a human life means far less to you if its random than if it had motive?

People who commit crimes in hate are still commiting crimes. The reason those states never adopted extra sentancing is because existing charges were sufficient enough to fit the crimes.

Bear in mind these same states you are refering to also have far more extreme sentancing than the general liberal states. Most these states allow death sentancing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

mistral

Est. Contributor
Messages
24
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Are you saying that all murders are equal regardless of the motivation for the crime? So if someone drives carelessly and knocks over a pedestrian with their car and kills them it is exactly the same as a lynch mob chasing down and killing a guy just because he happens to have the wrong coloured skin or even the wrong sexual orientation?

For me laws are a reflection of what society thinks is acceptable. We have hate crime legislation to make it clear to all that discrimination of this kind is not acceptable.

I think it's interesting that the OP titles his post with "developed world" and then talks about states in the US. There is a "developed world" away from the US and certainly in Europe we tend not to tolerate this sort of blatant discrimination. Legally sacking someone for being gay? Really?
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,764
Role
Diaper Lover
Are you saying that all murders are equal regardless of the motivation for the crime? So if someone drives carelessly and knocks over a pedestrian with their car and kills them it is exactly the same as a lynch mob chasing down and killing a guy just because he happens to have the wrong coloured skin or even the wrong sexual orientation?

For me laws are a reflection of what society thinks is acceptable. We have hate crime legislation to make it clear to all that discrimination of this kind is not acceptable.

I think it's interesting that the OP titles his post with "developed world" and then talks about states in the US. There is a "developed world" away from the US and certainly in Europe we tend not to tolerate this sort of blatant discrimination. Legally sacking someone for being gay? Really?
I know the US is only PART of the developed world, I was just surprised that in so many states motive in crime doesn't seem to mean anything; apparently because it is implied that the people will get punished enough for doing the crime.

And as far as The Death Sentence goes, they technically sentence a lot of people to death; thousands even (apparently about 8000+ since 1976 when it was reinstated), and yet most seem to sit on Death Row for possibly decades.

I'm just saying I thought Hate Crime Laws were pretty much universal in The United States, and I also didn't know that 27 states allow firing people for being gay, probably "at will employers" (I think that is the term where they can fire you at any time, for any reason; but "protected classes" like gender, skin color, sexuality and so on are supposed to be "protected classes", but then if they can fire you for w/e they don't have to give a reason).

I just said "Developed world" so people wont hopefully bring up countries that still have outdated laws from 100s/1000s of years ago (which still exists, look at some countries in Africa and Asia, and The Middle East, their punishment of Homosexuality goes up to execution)
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
221
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Are you saying that all murders are equal regardless of the motivation for the crime? So if someone drives carelessly and knocks over a pedestrian with their car and kills them it is exactly the same as a lynch mob chasing down and killing a guy just because he happens to have the wrong coloured skin or even the wrong sexual orientation?
BAD comparison, the first gets classed as manslaughter/vehicular manslaughter, a better comparison would be the one in the vehicle sees someone they hat and intentionally runs them over. In the case of the second, well, the only real difference there is the number involved. Keep in mind though in the law there are things like 1st/2nd degree murder or capital murder, murder and justifiable homicide the difference between 1st/second degree or capital murder/murder comes down to premeditation or planning (I.E. 2nd degree or just murder can be crimes of passion/of the moment)

For me laws are a reflection of what society thinks is acceptable. We have hate crime legislation to make it clear to all that discrimination of this kind is not acceptable.
for me, and others, laws are ways to try and curb issues that are becoming problems or things that should not happen at all. Some states might not have legislation for hate crimes because most there take a "as long as the job gets done I don't care about your personal quirks, skin color, etc as long as it does not impact customers or your ability to do your job". They might also not have such because the punishments for the crimes, in general, are bad enough to curb crime altogether regardless of motive. To put another spin on it, is Hate crime legislation really needed if they happen "once in a blue moon" or the punishment for say murder is the death penalty no matter what the reason, If self defense can be proven, those get off the hook anyway.

think it's interesting that the OP titles his post with "developed world" and then talks about states in the US. There is a "developed world" away from the US and certainly in Europe we tend not to tolerate this sort of blatant discrimination. Legally sacking someone for being gay? Really?
Thing is things are not always so blatant, like one might not be sacked for being gay but for acting gay towards/around customers making them uncomfortable, maybe invoking "sexual harassment" in doing so. Now why would such an employee not get sacked, especially after being warned and given chances to knock it off? However, the employee, in states with hate crime legislation, can claim he was fired for being gay when, while it might have been a factor, he was fired more for being an idiot and hurting the business.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Are you saying that all murders are equal regardless of the motivation for the crime? So if someone drives carelessly and knocks over a pedestrian with their car and kills them it is exactly the same as a lynch mob chasing down and killing a guy just because he happens to have the wrong coloured skin or even the wrong sexual orientation?

For me laws are a reflection of what society thinks is acceptable. We have hate crime legislation to make it clear to all that discrimination of this kind is not acceptable.

I think it's interesting that the OP titles his post with "developed world" and then talks about states in the US. There is a "developed world" away from the US and certainly in Europe we tend not to tolerate this sort of blatant discrimination. Legally sacking someone for being gay? Really?
No those are two diffrent charges one is involuntary manslaughter, the other is 1st degree murder.

OP is interpreting these laws wrong, just because it does not specificly annotate LGBT does not mean they are not still covered.

Laws are updated when they are challenged in court and a judge hands down a ruling, the states he was referring to have yet to have a reason to update laws when such examples already exist in other state court records and can be submitted in legal proceedings. The fact that no such laws exist there is more telling that they dont have those issues in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

mistral

Est. Contributor
Messages
24
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
BAD comparison, the first gets classed as manslaughter/vehicular manslaughter, a better comparison would be the one in the vehicle sees someone they hat and intentionally runs them over. In the case of the second, well, the only real difference there is the number involved. Keep in mind though in the law there are things like 1st/2nd degree murder or capital murder, murder and justifiable homicide the difference between 1st/second degree or capital murder/murder comes down to premeditation or planning (I.E. 2nd degree or just murder can be crimes of passion/of the moment)

Okay so the first guy sees someone who slept with his wife so he runs him over. Is that the same as a racially motivated crime? I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if is 1st degree, 2nd degree etc etc We're talking here about the MOTIVATION for the crime and this should make a difference.


for me, and others, laws are ways to try and curb issues that are becoming problems or things that should not happen at all. Some states might not have legislation for hate crimes because most there take a "as long as the job gets done I don't care about your personal quirks, skin color, etc as long as it does not impact customers or your ability to do your job". They might also not have such because the punishments for the crimes, in general, are bad enough to curb crime altogether regardless of motive. To put another spin on it, is Hate crime legislation really needed if they happen "once in a blue moon" or the punishment for say murder is the death penalty no matter what the reason, If self defense can be proven, those get off the hook anyway.

So are you saying there are states where no one is victimised due their sexuality or the colour of their skin? Really? The law is there to protect everyone and especially the most vulnerable, it's not to just go with the majority view.



Thing is things are not always so blatant, like one might not be sacked for being gay but for acting gay towards/around customers making them uncomfortable, maybe invoking "sexual harassment" in doing so. Now why would such an employee not get sacked, especially after being warned and given chances to knock it off? However, the employee, in states with hate crime legislation, can claim he was fired for being gay when, while it might have been a factor, he was fired more for being an idiot and hurting the business.
BAD comparison. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment regardless of the orientation of the perpetrator. Having hate crime legislation doesn't mean you can't be sacked if you happen to be gay, it means you can't be sacked BECAUSE you are gay.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
BAD comparison. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment regardless of the orientation of the perpetrator. Having hate crime legislation doesn't mean you can't be sacked if you happen to be gay, it means you can't be sacked BECAUSE you are gay.
But this really does not happen. The law does not specificly say this is legal the absence of it more speaks volumes about it has not happened or needed to be challenged in the first place. Being fired for being gay is still covered as unlawful termination on a federal scale, a local or state law would just be redundant/useless as federal law would take priority.



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
221
Role
Babyfur, Carer
Ok, first, does the motivation MATTER when the punishment is the same? unless it is something like self defense it might not matter to any but a prosecutor or judge, and in that case reasons to change the law can be made. Quite a few don't care about the why, only the what. Second, I never claimed that there are states that no one is victimized due to their sexuality, just that there are states where such instances are rare or the laws have not been challenged and changed due to how rare the crimes in question are. The laws are meant to protect everyone, including the most vulnerable, however if no one speaks up to challenge the law and get it changed why should they get changed? More or less your argument boils down to all states or locations should have hate crime legislation even if hate crimes, or crimes motivated by hate, have not been an issue. Keep in mind that motivations can come out in trials and then be used to propose legislation. Maybe the issue is the motivation does not come out or if the motivation is hate, it is like q in every 100,000 cases so the issue is not seen.

I never said I was comparing, just stating that being/because one is gay would not get one fired but acting gay/sexual harassment would and that the one fired, who was gay, could claim he was fired BECAUSE he was gay. I am not sure how it is in the UK or even Canada but here in the US there are those that would try and take advantage of the laws in place to get others in trouble even if they did nothing wrong and even if the employer did nothing wrong, just the claim of wrong doing would be enough to condemn them in the eyes of the public. Any one with sense would see that one that sexually harassed others would be fired, regardless of orientation, but again there are those that see the only reason for things like being fired is BECAUSE they are gay.

But this really does not happen. The law does not specificly say this is legal the absence of it more speaks volumes about it has not happened or needed to be challenged in the first place. Being fired for being gay is still covered as unlawful termination on a federal scale, a local or state law would just be redundant/useless as federal law would take priority.
Only time the state or local law would take priority might be if the sentencing or restitution owed fills the minimum required on the federal but goes farther, Maybe the lack of legislation is because the states in question feel the federal is good enough and as long as the state or local laws are not challenged the legislation will not be made.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,883
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
For me laws are a reflection of what society thinks is acceptable. We have hate crime legislation to make it clear to all that discrimination of this kind is not acceptable.



I see this issue from the opposite side whereas if there is enough of these to warrant a new law or charge in the first place maybe the people in that area need to stop and take a long look at their society. A law should not be used to define a nation, they should be only implemented as a last resort to curb widespread injustice. If an area has no such problem, then no such law should be enacted. The people should be trusted to take care of themselves untill such a time as they prove unable or unwilling.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
18,659
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
The states that don't have hate crime laws tend to be populated my a majority of conservative minded people. For some, they believe that governments have their fingers in too many pies. There are some that believe people should be given more latitude in governing themselves, such as not hiring LGBTQ people or renting apartments to such people. But our Declaration of Independence is quite clear on how we should treat one another. Each person should be treated equally, and that we all have the right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. If I discriminate against you I'm denying you those rights, especially when I treat someone else differently.

My mom was a big believer in the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I think that's a good philosophy to live by whether it's covered by law or not. Oh...and I'm not bashing conservatives. Everyone has a right to their own philosophical believes, something I respect. We don't have the right to harm others.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
447
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Correct me if I’m wrong but for the states where you can be fired for being gay, are that not at will states where you can pretty much be fired for anything? Boss doesn’t like your tie... take a hike.
 
Top