[Faith-talk] Fw: Jan. 8: New Jersey Passes Dangerous Hate-Crimes Bill

[Lisa Felix]

Hi Joseph,
 
I'm confused.  I need to go back and reread.  Sorry for the confusion to you, and anyone else reading this.  Thanks for responding to me.
 
Lisa> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:56:05 -0800> From: tjosephcarter at gmail.com> To: faith-talk at nfbnet.org> Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] Fw: Jan. 8: New Jersey Passes Dangerous Hate-Crimes Bill> > Lisa,> > Wait, you agree with what I said, except you're saying the exact opposite?> > This legislation does not protect the rights of people to use whichever> restroom they want. Nor does it say that you can't tell them what you> think of their desire to do otherwise. (We're guaranteed freedom of> speech, not freedom from speech.)> > What this legislation says is that there are people who think that the> answer to "Sex?" on a form is not M/F, but rather a sliding scale. It> says that if someone does something violent to these people, they can be> charged both with their crime, and with the added charge that what they> did is a hate crime. That doesn't affect the legality of anything else> they might do. It simply defines this a hate crime to include violence> against these confused people because they're confused.> > The forwarded article said that this bill adds protection status for these> people to the hate crime laws they already have and includes more fluffy> left-wing sensitivity training. It then went on to say that this> legislation is bad because it doesn't define who should or should not be> covered by it, and that these people are immoral and putting our children> at risk of being exposed to things they shouldn't be. Those things may be> true, but the first is resolved by the DA and jury determining the motive> for a crime. The second certainly does not justify anything ranging from> assault to aggravated murder under any circumstances.> > Protecting these people from mob mentality even though we think what they> are doing is wrong is most certainly a Christian value. Anyone else would> say that if the law will not punish these people for it behavior, they> would. Such "punishments" have been delivered in the past for people who> were of the wrong skin color, wrong national origin, wrong religion, and> in recent decades, wrong sexual orientation. That's exactly what hate> crime legislation is designed to prevent, and these transgender people> certainly deserve to be protected from that.> > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:45:24AM -0700, Lisa Felix wrote:> > .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }> > Hi Joseph,> >  > > I agree with much of what you said.  If I am understanding you correctly, though, the part you mention about the children being protected may be misunderstood.  This legislation will lead to our children NOT being protected and actually put in danger, because these people will be using facilities such as restrooms that are children use, and therefore, our children will be exposed outside the confines of parental education about such things.  I am completely against unisex restrooms, especially in schools.  This can lead to sexual harrassment and/or assualt.  I know this line of thought is a bit off topic, but it does tie in.  If protection is given to these people, it opens the doors for unisex restrooms, and so much more that is simply unreal in my mind.  I believe the unisex restrooms have already been discussed in some areas and may even already been put into place.> >  > > I agree that any crime, regardless of "what gender"...good grief! committed it, should be punished accordingly. > >  > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are implying that the root of all this nonsense is elsewhere, which needs just as much attention in correcting.  For instance, it all starts in the home and how children are raised.  It goes beyond that though, because, children do not always follow their parents training.  One thing trickles down to another, and before you know it, we have a bunch of issues in our society.  Each needs to be dealt with.  Christians need to get more involved with their own families, as well as the community.  Needless to say, this legislation is in progress, and therefore, since it goes against what we believe because we know it to be wrong through God's Word, it must be stopped.  These people need Christ.  That truly is the bottom line.> >  > > May God bless your day today with wisdom and strength to carry out His will in your life.> >  > > Lisa> > _______________________________________________> Faith-talk mailing list> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk
_________________________________________________________________
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
-------------- next part --------------
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }
Hi Joseph,
 
I'm confused.  I need to go back and reread.  Sorry for the confusion to you, and anyone else reading this.  Thanks for responding to me.
 
Lisa
> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:56:05 -0800
> From: tjosephcarter at gmail.com
> To: faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] Fw: Jan. 8: New Jersey Passes Dangerous Hate-Crimes Bill
>
> Lisa,
>
> Wait, you agree with what I said, except you're saying the exact opposite?
>
> This legislation does not protect the rights of people to use whichever
> restroom they want. Nor does it say that you can't tell them what you
> think of their desire to do otherwise. (We're guaranteed freedom of
> speech, not freedom from speech.)
>
> What this legislation says is that there are people who think that the
> answer to "Sex?" on a form is not M/F, but rather a sliding scale. It
> says that if someone does something violent to these people, they can be
> charged both with their crime, and with the added charge that what they
> did is a hate crime. That doesn't affect the legality of anything else
> they might do. It simply defines this a hate crime to include violence
> against these confused people because they're confused.
>
> The forwarded article said that this bill adds protection status for these
> people to the hate crime laws they already have and includes more fluffy
> left-wing sensitivity training. It then went on to say that this
> legislation is bad because it doesn't define who should or should not be
> covered by it, and that these people are immoral and putting our children
> at risk of being exposed to things they shouldn't be. Those things may be
> true, but the first is resolved by the DA and jury determining the motive
> for a crime. The second certainly does not justify anything ranging from
> assault to aggravated murder under any circumstances.
>
> Protecting these people from mob mentality even though we think what they
> are doing is wrong is most certainly a Christian value. Anyone else would
> say that if the law will not punish these people for it behavior, they
> would. Such "punishments" have been delivered in the past for people who
> were of the wrong skin color, wrong national origin, wrong religion, and
> in recent decades, wrong sexual orientation. That's exactly what hate
> crime legislation is designed to prevent, and these transgender people
> certainly deserve to be protected from that.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:45:24AM -0700, Lisa Felix wrote:
> > .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }
> > Hi Joseph,
> >  
> > I agree with much of what you said.  If I am understanding you correctly, though, the part you mention about the children being protected may be misunderstood.  This legislation will lead to our children NOT being protected and actually put in danger, because these people will be using facilities such as restrooms that are children use, and therefore, our children will be exposed outside the confines of parental education about such things.  I am completely against unisex restrooms, especially in schools.  This can lead to sexual harrassment and/or assualt.  I know this line of thought is a bit off topic, but it does tie in.  If protection is given to these people, it opens the doors for unisex restrooms, and so much more that is simply unreal in my mind.  I believe the unisex restrooms have already been discussed in some areas and may even already been put into place.
> >  
> > I agree that any crime, regardless of "what gender"...good grief! committed it, should be punished accordingly. 
> >  
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are implying that the root of all this nonsense is elsewhere, which needs just as much attention in correcting.  For instance, it all starts in the home and how children are raised.  It goes beyond that though, because, children do not always follow their parents training.  One thing trickles down to another, and before you know it, we have a bunch of issues in our society.  Each needs to be dealt with.  Christians need to get more involved with their own families, as well as the community.  Needless to say, this legislation is in progress, and therefore, since it goes against what we believe because we know it to be wrong through God's Word, it must be stopped.  These people need Christ.  That truly is the bottom line.
> >  
> > May God bless your day today with wisdom and strength to carry out His will in your life.
> >  
> > Lisa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause Learn more