From Gary Randall and Faith and Freedom Network and Foundation.
“A New York judge, Jill Konviser of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, has ruled that three men arrested in the death of a gay man who was beaten and then struck by a car during a robbery can be charged with hate crimes without evidence that they were motivated by hatred for gay men. (Read article.)
Make no mistake, we are not suggesting that those who committed this crime should not be punished to the full extent of the law. We are addressing the issue of hate crimes legislation.
We have been following this case as it has unfolded in the courts because it is unique. And it indicates what we can expect in the future. All along, homosexuality has defined this case according to The New York Times. The Times reported, “Prosecutors have used it as sword, seeking heavier sentences for a hate crime.”
Then a few weeks ago, one of the defendants said, “No, I don’t hate gays. I am gay.” (Read article.)
This case proves that the hate crimes legislation we are being force-fed by both federal and state government is unnecessary.
The Associated Press reported that the law only requires that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person’s ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.
I believe this case proves that we don’t need so-called hate crimes legislation. We already have laws in place to punish violent crimes without discriminating against those victims who may not fall into one of the preferred categories of the hate crimes laws, therefore seeing their assailants punished less harshly.
This case exposes the real agenda of those who seek to advance the hate crimes bills.
When a judge says you can be prosecuted for a hate crime without demonstrating hate, there is clearly something wrong with that picture. It’s particularly telling when the defendant is a member of the same protected class as the victim.
Many have said that the hate crimes bills have really been about advancing and elevating the social and legal agenda of the gay activists.
I agree. And this case goes a long way toward making that point.”