American Family Association claim hate crime laws aim to “eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda” / sun aft

There’s no practical purpose for this lawsuit.

However, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, “[the non-discrimination rule] exempts all religious organizations, which includes corporations, associations, and religious societies. In addition, all educational institutions are exempt if the educational institution is at least substantially controlled or owned by a religious organization or if the institution’s curriculum is directed towards the propagation of a religion.”

They can preach all the hate they want, they’re in no danger. Nevertheless:

The Thomas More suit, however, goes even further than just challenging hate crimes protection for LGBT people; it challenges the findings of the Matthew Shepard investigation.

“Thomas More attorneys make the case that the perpetrators of the murder of Matthew Shepard were subject to more several criminal penalties under existing state criminal law than under the new federal Hate Crimes Act,” religious news outlet Christian Post notes. “They also say there is evidence demonstrating that the senseless and brutal attack on Shepard was not motivated by hate or bias; rather, it was motivated by money and drugs.”

Again. As if a judge would say “. . . really? Well, that changes everything: I’m invalidating this law because now I know how Matthew Shepard actually died.”

What’s happening here is that the self-righteous are uncomfortable. They crave the brace of authority, but authority puts them on the wrong side of right and wrong. So, they call their lawyers because they just don’t know what else to do.


One thought American Family Association claim hate crime laws aim to “eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda” / sun aft

  1. avatar Chasm says:

    I read the entire brief, and although I’m not a lawyer, it is indeed pretty useless. Only one argument has any merit – that the law may be unconstitutional under the commerce clause – and only because you can’t ever predict how the Supreme’s will go on commerce clause arguments. The plaintiffs will have a tough time showing harm, though. They huff and puff mightily, trying to show that by holding intense and public anti-gay views they will be subject to public smearing and possibly government scrutiny, but getting hammered by political opponents is a free speech right and until/unless they can show actual harassment by public officials, this will get thrown out fast because they don’t have standing.

Comments are closed.