A state court struck down amendments to Pennsylvania’s version of a hate crime law Thursday, declaring the statutes that cover crimes committed with bias against sexual orientation unconstitutional.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled 4-1 against the enactment of the 2002 amendment because it did not retain the original purpose of a bill that addressed agricultural vandalism and crop destruction.
Judge James Gardner Colins wrote in the majority opinion that the court agreed with petitioners that HB 1493 “did not retain its original purpose as it moved through the enactment process,” thus violating Article III of the state Constitution.
He declared the provision “unconstitutional and therefore null and void.”
President Judge Bonnie Leadbetter dissented, but did not issue an opinion explaining why.
The court’s decision was based more on a procedural issue regarding the passage of amendment rather than on the constitutionality of adding “sexual orientation” as a protected class under the law.
Still, the ruling was declared a victory for members of Repent America (RA), a conservative Christian group known for holding protests outside public events for gays and lesbians. Eleven members of the group, which believes homosexuality is a sin, were arrested in 2004 for picketing at a Philadelphia event for homosexuals called “OutFest.”
Although charges were later dropped or dismissed, according to RA, seven members of the organization filed a lawsuit in 2005 to challenge the constitutionality of the amendment used to charge them with a felony.
The group praised the court’s decision.
“The Court rightly found that there was no logical or legal connection between trampling down a hay field and assaulting someone on the basis of sexual orientation," said the group’s attorney Aaron Martin in a statement Thursday.
“This is a victory for constitutional government, so let us be thankful,” stated RA director Michael Marcavage Thursday.
It was not immediately clear whether Gov. Ed Rendell's administration or the Legislature would appeal.
Rendell urged lawmakers in a statement to immediately pass "appropriate legislation" reinstating the measure. He noted that the law would also protect “religious minorities.”
Conservative Christian groups, however, believe such hate-crime laws would infringe on their freedom of speech and incriminate them for expressing their moral views on issues such as homosexuality.
Many are closely watching an advancing federal legislation that would add “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes under a 1964 act that prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
The Employment Non-discrimination Act, which was passed by the House last week, is set to be introduced in the U.S. Senate. The White House has pledge a veto from President Bush if it makes it to his desk.
Comments
Wow, Yes_I_am_a_Jew... No offense, but... That is pathetic. Stop wasting your time and go annoy someone by saying "tzit-tzit" or something... Or better yet go get a good job so you can BUY yourself a front row seat in the Pagan Temple :)
This is amazing. Wow. If they pass a hate crime law protecting mutations then every time a religious leader says that acting under homosexual love some homosexual-atheist couple will write it down and go to court with it, and since the leader was the one stating it he will be liable and thus will most likely lose (NOTE: This is true at least for the Catholic religion, that it is ONLY a sin if you act sexually under homosexuality, homosexuality itself is NOT a sin) I have seen many homosexual groups who assault RA protesters, get off without any charges, get the RA who they assaulted arrested, then file a law suit against them and walk away happily, their pockets jingling with coins. And after all this they leap at the chance to claim that Catholic doctrine itself is hateful and that Catholicism should be illegal (this last part is not very common, but I have seen at least 5 ACLU, prohomosexual leaders who think this) I have friends in the Church that are homosexual. We are in no way hateful of them, but it is vice versa.
well said GMG. I couldn't have said that better myself. Mega kudos to you!!!!!
Yes I am a Jew -
Last I checked, the constitution still protects my right of peaceful demonstration, no matter who I am. My question was whether the arrests were due to the fact that the group demonstrated against was a homosexual group - after all, there was no indication of violence and they were released without charges. You must admit this is a political hot-potato these days. And wouldn't you wonder if they weren't possibly trying to head off a situation they didn't want to have to tackle (such as a charge of harassment)? And do you really believe that most police departments are lily-white and don't involve ANY political motivation in their decisions? Case in point - you state there is a difference in motivation. How do you know what their motivation was, do you automatically think it was motivated by hate? And isn't this, therefore, getting us right back to the problem of adding this type of thing into hate or bias type language in any kind of legislation?
Any finally, what makes their cry of unfair treatment any more valid than anyone else's? Perhaps we should just legislate an amendment to our constitution that says something like "And if you don't agree with any subject view held by another, we will attribute your motivation to hate and you will be prosecuted under the full extent of the law". I would think that should cover the whole enchilada.
I do so enjoy frequenting this site, in my never-ending attempt to understand the workings (or should I say malfunctioning) of the fundamentalist Christian mind.
Where to begin?
GMG, you said "This whole thing has become such an issue of the so-called "political correctness" thinking that everything is so out of whack, it seems that gays can demonstrate with impunity but anyone who demonstrates against gays are troublemakers, suspect, and definitly unredeemably intolerant." While I am vehemently against overreaching political correctness in my every day life (such as calling midgets vertically challenged and so on) I think you miss an important point. There is a significant difference between the homosexuals who demonstrate and those who demonstrate against them. It's an issue of motivation. The gays are demonstrating to protect their positive rights. They are attempting to secure the right to live their lives as they see fit and proper, regardless of the opinion of others, while not impinging on the positive rights of others. The anti-gay demonstrators on the other hand are actively seeking to interfere with the positive rights of the gays under the guise of protecting society's morals. The truth of the matter is that you don't approve of their lifestyle. And in the end that's all fine and good but for pete's sake keep it to yourself and just shake your head and walk on. It's not as if the gays are grabbing churchgoers and beating them because they're not gay, or raping them to somehow convert them.
This legal decision was without doubt the result of the court engaging in procedural gymnastics to reach a desired result. But, that's the law as it stands for now.
That being said it is repulsive and disgusting the manner in which many of you discuss gays. They're possessed by evil spirits? Commenters like LDGreen are why non-christians consider fundamentalist Christians to be backwards and ignorant. Arguments advanced by logic and reason are the way to get a message across, not resorts to the supernatural world where a demon crawls in somone's ear and all of a sudden they're FABULOUS! Give me a break.
Idgreen -
" Homosexual acts can onlt be perform while in the body so if a homosexual dies in that unrepentent state they will not be able to satisfy that lust so they continue to influence the lost through demonic agencies affect the minds of those who reject God's Truth."
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Homosexual need deliverance from the evil spirit that posses them. Disciple of Jesus have the authority to help those who want deliverance and pray for those who don't. Homosexual acts can onlt be perform while in the body so if a homosexual dies in that unrepentent state they will not be able to satisfy that lust so they continue to influence the lost through demonic agencies affect the minds of those who reject God's Truth. He turns them over to a depraved state. So I am glad the Judge saw through the homosexual attempt to derail our criminal justice system. The laws against violence are adequate and all criminal must be held accountable. No church promotes hate toward homosexuals they are torment by the evil spirits that tremble at the name of Jesus. The name torments them because they need the demons, and unclean spirit cast out of them. This wrestling is not against flesh and blood but the principalities that govern this evil conduct, and wicked people in high places that promote it and protect it.
I need to add that Canada already has hate crimes legislation in place, and if the left leaning democrats, or some liberal republican in the US gets into power, there is a possibility that this will eventually pop up again on soem other bill. The gay mafia and their cronies will not stop at this. The democrats for the most part are blind to morality, and think everything is subjective, and relative to one's own perception, and the ones who grew up in the "hippie/new age" mentality all hate this country, and rather side with socilaism, secular humanism, and communism.
Some liberal republicans and democrats are caving in to the gay special interest, and political correctness crowd as well, and would go as far as try to include their lifestyle into a civil right agenda.
Yes, praise the Lord! Which is why it is SO VERY IMPORTANT for Christians to get out and vote.
GMG
Probably, but President Bush already said he would veto it, so it doesnt matter.
REVIVALS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT; ESPECIALLY IN THESE LAST DAYS. When anything goes wrong within a Meeting....try again.
We, the Church, need to be constantly revived...and when God sends a Revival; and a Evangelist...He will prove Himseld...
BE ENCOURAGED...AND TRY AGAIN...AMEN
Yeah, ya did. Guess my sleepy mind didn't fully absorb that. Oh well, at least you know someone else saw it too and you weren't dreaming!!
Well, they'll probably pass it anyway, it's politically correct you know, and when it turns out that all those intolerant christians were right they'll just say, oh well gee, we meant well, sorry!
Amazing how often those kinds of warnings are ignored and yet turn out to be right. "The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history" (can't remember who said that). Well, guess that will make the "emerging church" pretty righteous, after all THEY would never be guilty of anything that unloving or bigoted, so they have nothing to fear.
Well that's what Ron Paul said...i had it in my post towards the end..
..."One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime." And that's scary. As I said...it's just one small step away from silencing the religious sect.
Sorry, that was a transcript of the hearing I read.
prophet,
If I remember correctly back to when I read a copy of the hearing minutes early on in consideration of that bill 1592, someone presented that example of a pastor sermon/member then commits crime, and then he asked point blank,,,,under this bill as it is written now, could that pastor then be found guilty of inciting a person to commit a hate crime? The answer was "yes". So they acknowledged prior to passage through the House that this bill could result in such a thing happening.
My question is, how could they pass that bill knowing about these repercussions and yet tell us that this bill gives full protection to churchs' freedom of religion rights?