Social conduct protests and hate crime laws

An aquaintance of mine and I have been discussing this controversial site. Click here (http://www.boycottpepsico.com/).

It shows a conservative Christian group is protesting PepsiCo's support of the homosexual community and threatens to reduce their sales unless the company submits to their particular views, by ceasing financial support of that community.

I have 3 questions for the AF community. My thoughts are in italics.

1. Do you believe that any one organization can protest the law-abiding actions of others..... and threaten their livelihood?
(I say yes, free speech and all, so long as libel and slander laws apply.)

2. Do you believe this site unfairly identifies homosexual men and women as targets and encourages the general public to be biased and discriminate against them?
( I would say yes..... the site does not actually condemn homosexual behavior or the community but there is an obvious context of disapproval and disgust present in the site.)

(I also would think if this organization really had public interest in mind, they would target companies which are demonstrably harmful to the public, such as gross polluters, tobacco firms etc.)

3. My aquaintance singled-out the issue that homosexuals unfairly benefit from hate crime legislation, that is, someone could be charged with a hate crime, even if 'hate' had nothing to do with their motiovation, resulting in an unfairly-harsh punishment.
Hate crime laws are a series of laws which inflict more severe penalties if identifiable racial, religious or social minorities are victimized specifically for their status. (Click here for more info) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States)
Do you believe such laws are unfair... or justified?
(I think it depends on application, similar to the ways murder and manslaughter charges are made...... such laws may be applied unjustly, but can be used as grounds for appeal)

So, please state your opinion!!! :)

1. Same answer.

2. No. I don't see anything that implies that any action should be taken against an individual, or even people. All it is is saying stop drinking Mountain Dew and start drinking Vault (a hard sacrifice for me... nothing against Vault, but Mountain Dew is quite possibly the best beverage ever invented :))It's about trying to stop a company from giving money to groups that give money to groups that want to change things in a manor that is unappealing to me. Getting into #3 a bit here, and probably giving away that I am the acquaintance :)... If someone were to walk up to me on the street and ask "Can you spare some change so that I can pay lobbyists to influence a vote of 'yes' to new legislation that will give some people more protection under the law than what you have?" I'm not going to give him a cent, and I'm not going to buy a liter bottle of Mountain Dew to wake me up in the morning.

3. Such laws are not fair. I believe that everyone is equal, and giving one person more protection than another is not equality. If I'm walking down the street and decide to rob a guy (hypothetical, of course), now I need to stop a minute and think. I see a guy wearing a pink shirt, tight white pants, and holding another guy's hand, now I see a guy in blue jeans and a white T-shirt. Well, I'm going to rob the guy in bluejeans. That's just a robbery charge. These laws made that guy a victim. I identify a homosexual (yes, I know it's a stereotype, they don't all dress like that) and decide that he should not be a victim of a crime based on his sexual orientation. Which means, in essence, that I see a straight guy and decide to make him a victim of a crime. If a lesbian black Muslim paraplegic applies for a job, she's gonna get it if she's even remotely qualified. Some straight white atheist goes in, not a chance in hell of getting the job (excuse the pun :-D). It's crazy. When I first started looking for a job, at one of the places I applied it was down to me and a black guy. We had our interviews at pretty much the same time, his was right before mine and I was sitting outside the cubicle for the whole thing. From what I overheard... He only had a highschool education, didn't have a car (but could find a ride), and IMO wasn't dressed to do the job, let alone interview for it. Long story short, the college graduate with a car and dressed nicely didn't get the job.

In my book, that's not right. I'm equal to a black man, a gay man, or any other human. I once heard someone argue for affirmative action, saying that whites had it better than blacks for so long that it really isn't a big deal. Ya know what? Nobody in my family ever owned a slave. Even if someone did, I didn't. I find it very hard to believe that anyone alive today in this country has ever been or has ever owned a slave. Maybe a few immigrant slave owners, but very little chance of a slave. We don't need to give "them" more than "we" give ourselves. That would turn into an endless balancing act. Just make everything equal, and any inequalities will even out over time.

I'm pretty sure I have a gay friend, and it doesn't matter to me that he's gay, if he is. Here we'll assume that he is. Although I personally think "that's" disgusting, what he does on his own time is nobody's business but his own. Years down the road, lets say we get into a fight over something and it gets physical. Well, he's pissed off at me and he starts this "hate" crime bulls---, so I go to prison and he gets probably nothing, maybe assault or disorderly conduct. I didn't hit him because he's gay, I punched him because he pissed me off. Just like I'd do to a straight guy. It's been so long since I've seen it so I'm not even going to try for a quote, but it's just like that episode of South Park. Why's it called a hate crime? You don't commit crimes against people you like.

1. I believe that social protest is protected under the 1st amendment and that's how it should be.

2. No. Their specific targeting of the homosexual community draws attention to the issue, but most people are smart enough to consider the source. That is to say that most people can recognize and acknowledge that this is simply a matter of Christian fundamentalists attacking homosexuals. Status quo

3. Hate crime laws are fair and justified. From the standpoint of legal philosophy, different punishments for similar criminal outcomes are generally determined based on the intent of the perpetrator, e.g. manslaughter vs. murder, which I believe was already mentioned. In singling out and committing crimes against a specific group of people, the issue of malicious intent has been introduced, thus warranting a harsher penalty. This is consistent with most all western understandings of crime and punishment. Of course this requires establishing the intent of the perpetrator, which does raise issues of misuse and abuse, but that should not detract from the passage and enforcement of such laws. It simply requires that intent MUST be conclusively shown or the crime cannot fall under hate crime legislation. :2cents:

1.law abiding is too often used as an excuse for immoral behavior. Everything is legal until a law proscribing is written but that doesn't make it right.

2.Yes, the site only exists to perpetuate hate. There is no other explanation for it's existence.

3.How would you describe crimes against homos as other than crimes of hatred? Crimes against your friends? Get real. If the only discriminating factor in the the perpetuation of a crime is bigotry then it is a hate crime.

First off, I'll say that the site only showed PepsiCo's contributions to the Gay/Lesbian causes. What it did NOT show were PepsiCo's contributions to any OTHER causes...which are many, as turned up by my simple Google search. So as usual, this this organization is complaining about PepsiCo's donations to something they don't like, excluding the information about donations to things they DO like. Sigh.

However, to address the questions:

1. Do you believe that any one organization can protest the law-abiding actions of others..... and threaten their livelihood?

1A: It's free speech. You can protest anything you want; it doesn't make you right to protest, and as long as you're not libeling or slandering (which are against the law) you are well within your rights to do so. However as far as the law is concerned, if this campaign actually hurt PepsiCo's sales, they might be able to make a case against the organization and claim damages.

2. Do you believe this site unfairly identifies homosexual men and women as targets and encourages the general public to be biased and discriminate against them?


2A: No more than any other site that focuses on one thing and finds some references to back up the position. And actually, after a re-read, it doesn't make statements against homosexuals, only against PepsiCo.

3. the issue that homosexuals unfairly benefit from hate crime legislation, that is, someone could be charged with a hate crime, even if 'hate' had nothing to do with their motiovation, resulting in an unfairly-harsh punishment.
Hate crime laws are a series of laws which inflict more severe penalties if identifiable racial, religious or social minorities are victimized specifically for their status. (Click here for more info) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States)
Do you believe such laws are unfair... or justified?

3A: Hate crimes....we could have several threads' worth of discussion just on these. IMO crimes are crimes. If you attack a person because they are ___________, is it more of a crime than if you just attacked them, or attacked them because they spit on you? Therein lies the debate. If you simply hate a __________ person and punch them, burn them, or stab them on sight, what makes your more guilty than some psychopath that punches, burns or stabs someone because they looked at him wrong? Society puts too much emphasis on motivation, rather than action taken. Punish what is done, not why it is done.

Punish what is done, not why it is done.

So involuntary manslaughter should be punishable by lethal injection, much like 1st degree murder? As you put it, "what is done" is the same in both cases, however the the why is rather important.

So involuntary manslaughter should be punishable by lethal injection, much like 1st degree murder? As you put it, "what is done" is the same in both cases, however the the why is rather important.

I was speaking of hate crimes vs non hate crimes, so you've taken me out of context.

But since you brought it up, I think the distinction should be made between how and why. Involuntary manslaughter has no why, as it was involuntary, there's just the how, as in how it occurred. In a 1st degree murder, there is the how but it is obvious that someone performed an action to cause the murder.