Posted on 05/02/2007 12:43:17 PM PDT by DBCJR
Bill went to debate April 30th and is scheduled for a vote in the House tomorro, Thursday.
This also includes parents who refuse, for moral and religious reasons, to agree or teach their children that homosexuality, transgender, cross-dressing etc is normal and desirable.
Under the guise of hate-crime prevention this anti-Christian legislation will:
• Silence the Bible-believing Churches, Pastors and Christians under penalty of law.
• Criminalize so-called "hate speech," - which is any speech that is critical of homosexuality or cross-dressing behaviors. The suppression of free speech will be justified by the claim that such speech "incites" individuals to commit violence against homosexuals, cross-dressers etc. Any remarks about homosexuality, such as reading Bible passages, preaching on these passages, telling a person they can come out of the homosexual lifestyle, etc. will be deemed critical remarks and will be ruled to be outside the bounds of First Amendment protections for pastors, business-owners and individuals. Similar legislation in other countries has lead to the incarceration of pastors who simply read what the Bible said, see http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.aspx ; http://www.akegreen.org/
• Elevate homosexuality and cross-dressing behaviors such as drag queens, transsexualism, she-males, etc. to the status of federally-protected minorities. These behaviors will be considered equal to race under the federal law. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from enacting laws that favor one class of persons over another under the Equal Protection Clause, however, Congress is not bound by this clause even though it expresses the basic framework for "liberty and justice for all". Since ALL violent crimes are essentially "hate crimes", to single out one sub-category for protection is agregious to the ideals that framed the democratic republic and the liberty that we enjoy. Existing laws are sufficient for the protection of all people. This legislation has another agenda, a strike at Evangelical Christians.
• Interfere with local law enforcement by elevating every alleged incident of "hate" against a homosexual or cross-dresser into a federal crime.
• Fund anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to promote homosexuality and cross-dressing as normal behaviors.
In addition, HR 1592 makes false claims that:
1) Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
2) Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
3) Homosexuals are so persecuted they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment.
These false claims about homosexuals fleeing across state lines are being used as a hook to justify federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Please protect our Constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion. Oppose the so-called hate crimes bill H. R. 1592. Call, write or e-mail your Congress Person today!
Find contact information at:
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
H.R. 1592 (110th U.S. Congress: 2007-2008)
| Colors Show Changes Since Previous Version of Bill | ||
|
Removed Text
|
Inserted Text
|
Changed Text
|
| (Hide Colorized Changes) | ||
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. BONO, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. COSTA, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GERLACH, Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HODES, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KIND, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Mr. SKELTON, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Additional sponsors: Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. BEAN, Mr. RUSH, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. WALSH of New York, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. GILCHREST, Ms. CASTOR, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. OBERSTAR, Ms. HARMAN, Ms. KILPATRICK, and Mr. LANTOS
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
`(c) Definitions- In this section--
`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
`(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of←→ chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item←→:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
SEC. 8. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.←→
The United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall report the Commission's findings back to the Congress not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. STATISTICS.
(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes←→ Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,' after `race,'.
(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crimes←→ Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles' after `data acquired under this section'.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 11. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Union Calendar No. 67
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
In addition, HR 1592 makes false claims that:
1) Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
2) Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
It has to make those false claims or Congress would have no authority to enact such a pile of sh*t. It's the Commerce Clause, that's their only power to enact bullsh*t laws.
That's also why Durbin and Schumer raked Alito and Roberts over the coals during their hearings on their views of the Commerce Clause and Congress' power to use it. If SCOTUS holds a strict view of it as to its limitations Congress would need to only meet about three weeks a year as they couldn't pass all the crap they do.
Take a look at any Bill Congress comes up with (except taxes) and somewhere it will reference Commerce and Congress' power to regulate it.
Once a “hate crime” is identified, any speech made that might have “incited” that crime is prosecutable under this statute. So, let’s say a skinhead rolls a gay guy and says that he saw Rev So-n-so on TV reading the Bible about homosexuality being an abomination to God. The case has been made where other such statutes have been passed that such “hate speech” incited him to violence against this protected class, thereby implicating Rev So-n-so under the statute. “Incitation” has never required intent, or a mens rea, that Common Law does. This is an infringement of freedom of speech.
I listed several problems with the legislation, but what I didn’t share was that it also protects certain races and religions. So, let us assume that someone publically addresses radical Islamo-Facism and others respond in violent acts.
I did point out that this act would interrupt local law enforcement, but I failed to point out how much. If one cosiders race as a protected class, this interruption could be astronomical.
Please contact your Congress Person to oppose HR 1592 ASAP!
“Once a “hate crime” is identified, any speech made that might have “incited” that crime is prosecutable under this statute.”
I have not studied the bill as much as you have, so pardon my ignorance. Please show me where it says that, thanks in advance.
TVC Chairman Speaks Out On Dangers Of H.R. 1592 To Free Speech/Religion
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3059
April 18, 2007 – By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
This week, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, H.R. 1592.
The bill is touted as a way of helping local law enforcement officials deal with what sponsors claim is an overwhelming epidemic of hate crimes directed against minority groups – and to those who engage in homosexual sodomy and cross-dressing or transvestism.
The bill claims, without any evidence, that these persecuted individuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid being beaten up by bigots; that they are being pursued across state lines by these thugs; and that they can’t even find employment or purchase goods and services in their home states. All of these absurd claims are made in Section 2 of the bill.
The legislation is ostensibly designed to aid local law enforcement officials, but the real objective is to make homosexual behaviors, cross-dressing, and transsexualism into federally protected minority groups. Changeable behaviors are thus to be accorded the same federal protection as race.
The legislation only deals with violence against these groups, but trends in Canada show that hate crime laws are inevitably used by homosexual activists stifle freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The reasoning goes like this: Critical comments about homosexuality and cross-dressing “incite” individuals to commit violent acts; therefore, such so-called “hate speech” is outside of the bounds of First Amendment protections and must be suppressed.
This reasoning has been used to great effect in Canada. In 2005, the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law published a sobering survey of how homosexual activists and liberal judges have effectively killed free speech and religion in Canada.
The author, Hans C. Clausen, prefaced his lengthy report by observing: “Giving credence to Alexis de Tocqueville’s argument that in democratic societies that love of equality is greater than the love of freedom is a recently emerging trend among Western nations to legally proscribe speech critical of homosexuality.”
Clausen then details exactly how free speech and freedom of religion have been destroyed by homosexual activists and liberal judges in Canada. These enemies of religion and speech have created stiff penalties for anyone who dares speak critically about homosexuality. In 2003, the Canadian House of Commons passed a bill that added “sexual orientation” to the list of groups protected against so-called “hate speech.” Violators can be sentenced to up to five years in prison for uttering words critical of homosexual sodomy.
Homosexual activists are actually monitoring the sermons of Christian pastors to make sure they do not openly criticize homosexuality.
H.R. 1592 is laying the legal framework for this kind of persecution in the U.S. Once homosexuality and cross-dressing become federally-protected minority groups, the full force of the federal law enforcement can be brought down upon anyone who “incites” potential violence against a homosexual. For example, a pastor’s sermon from Romans 1 about homosexuality could be considered an incitement to such violence if some deranged churchgoer then goes out and beats up a homosexual.
If signed into law, H.R. 1592 will usher in the death of religious freedom and speech in this nation. Any critical comments about homosexual sodomy will be considered “hate speech” and outside the bounds of First Amendment protections. It has already happened in Canada and it will happen here if H.R. 1592 and other laws like it are not soundly defeated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.