[Freee-dame]

We should be alarmed at the language referenced and linked in the bill. These words are part of the bill though not visible until you check the link.

2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.—

This is definitely not the original or common usage definition of “Lynching”. Will it make a protected class for “gender identity” which is not yet in the law? How about “perceived”? We are losing our freedom of speech more and more in the USA.

. Will Republicans in Congress bother to check the language actually linked in the bill?

[Bonemaker]

“...2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.—”

At least we can still lynch someone who is an “actual or perceived” prick.

[Bonemaker]

“...2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.—”

At least we can still lynch someone who is an “actual or perceived” prick.

[KrisKrinkle]

” 2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

“National origin” it says. It occurs to me there might be an “illegal immigrant” connection here, especially if the charge is “conspiring” to act and not actual commission of an act.