“Hate crimes” against minority groups are unconstitutional.

[Aladin]

They violate the 14th amendment.

@thenewhebbe

 

[thenewhebbe]

I mean how are they unconsititutial

 

[Lefty Rankin]

They violate the 14th amendment.

@thenewhebbe

Yeah, there are just crimes. No hate crimes.

 

[noobs]

They violate the 14th amendment.

@thenewhebbe

the US constitution doesnt matter anymore past the point of the south seceding

The constitution has no power I read the constitution completely recently and half the laws have no effect on the current government

The 14th amendment was to bastardize the opposition’s rights for revenge after secession

The Jews owned all the slaves to in the south and used to for pretext to oppress and control the US

The confederacy is the legitimate heir of the 13 colonies

The 13 colonies were not 1 colony but separate governments

The original government was written hastily and badly because of the situation

 

[BitchBoy]

Lucky for ur most niggers and pakis are a majority. But asians should stop getting assaulted in US streets, if it was me I would kill the niggers doing it

 

[Deleted member 33112]

Whites are the minority

 

[Aladin]

I mean how are they unconsititutial

They are unequal protection.

 

[thenewhebbe]

They are unequal protection.

They aren't if attack white guy for being white its a hate crime

 

[Aladin]

They aren't if attack white guy for being white its a hate crime

What if a straight man goes for a homosexual man and attacks him specifically for being homosexual?

Should that carry larger penalties?

 

[Eriot Lodger]

What if a straight man goes for a homosexual man and attacks him specifically for being homosexual?

Should that carry larger penalties?

It should, but the same would be true for the inverse, except no one is ever attacked for being straight.

 

[Aladin]

It should, but the same would be true for the inverse, except no one is ever attacked for being straight.

Have you read the 14th amendment?

 

[Eriot Lodger]

Have you read the 14th amendment?

Even the right to free speech can be abridged. They do that with anti-defamation laws e.g.

 

[Aladin]

Even the right to free speech can be abridged. They do that with anti-defamation laws e.g.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Also defamation relies on people lying.

 

[Aladin]

It should, but the same would be true for the inverse, except no one is ever attacked for being straight.

But why though? Why should it? Why can’t it just carry the same penalties?

 

[Eriot Lodger]

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Also defamation relies on people lying.

Inciting people to commit criminal acts or even encouraging suicide (a non-illegal act) can be unlawful. I'm just saying there's many infringement on freedom of speech. It's not an absolute.

 

[Eriot Lodger]

But why though? Why should it? Why can’t it just carry the same penalties?

It has to do with motivation and intent. Assaulting someone because of their sexuality means there's more malicious intent. It's why we might give a more lenient sentence to someone who robs a liquor store because they're poor and have a drug problem than someone who commits that act solely for the purpose of fun.

 

[Aladin]

It has to do with motivation and intent. Assaulting someone because of their sexuality means there's more malicious intent. It's why we might give a more lenient sentence to someone who robs a liquor store because they're poor and have a drug problem than someone who commits that act solely for the purpose of fun.

Disagree. Should be penalized equally. Only the judge should determine the difference.

On top of that, those are the same under 14th amendment.

 

[Eriot Lodger]

Disagree. Should be penalized equally. Only the judge should determine the difference.

On top of that, those are the same under 14th amendment.

Running with that logic, a perpetrator of manslaughter (accidental killing) should receive the same punishment as someone who commits premeditated murder. They're not the same. Intent and motive obviously matters.

 

[Aladin]

Running with that logic, a perpetrator of manslaughter (accidental killing) should receive the same punishment as someone who commits premeditated murder. They're not the same. Intent and motive obviously matters.

No because in one case there was no intent and in the other case there was.

When killing people’s intentionally there is always intent.

You are really reaching hard here. I know you’re a faggot and maybe you didn’t choose to be but you chose to come out of the closet.

 

[Eriot Lodger]

No because in one case there was no intent and in the other case there was.

When killing people’s intentionally there is always intent.

You are really reaching hard here. I know you’re a faggot and maybe you didn’t choose to be but you chose to come out of the closet.

You're an ugly pedo so I'll always be above you.

I have more arguments but you're not mature enough to have a fruitful argument so I'll just leave you with a Happy Pride Month!

 

[Aladin]

You're an ugly pedo so I'll always be above you.

Lmao must suck to have grasp at that.

I have more arguments but you're not mature enough to have a fruitful argument so I'll just leave you with a Happy Pride Month!

You’re a miserable fag and u go against nature.