The New York Times reports on Merry Stephens, a successful girls basketball coach at a rural, East Texas school, where townsfolk rumored she was a lesbian.
Though it was true, Stephens denied it for five years while she was the coach of a championship high school basketball team in Bloomburg, afraid the truth would cost her a job.
It did cost her a job. As it did the job of Stephens’ partner, the school’s bus driver.
And thanks to Senators Hargrove and Sheldon and the entire WA state Senate Republican caucus, this kind of employment discrimination is perfectly legal in Washington state. Makes you proud, huh?
Republicans like to say this type of legislation gives certain groups “special privileges.” It does not. The only “privilege” it confers is to live like everyone else and be treated like everyone else.
Republicans sometimes argue this type of legislation interferes with “freedom” — an employer’s freedom to hire whomever he wants, a landlord’s freedom to rent to whomever he wants, etc. In truth, it interferes with the freedom — the freedom of victims of bigotry and prejudice to work where they want, live where they want, etc.
This type of legislation takes aim at bigotry. The only people who need fear it are bigots.
Why is is that Democrat cannot handle debate? They accuse conservatives of getting violent yet offer no proof whatsoever.
In fact it is liberals, who when wits with conservatives, are showing up unarmed – except of course for the physical violence they commit due to lack of an intelligent argument?
For example, take the case of Anne Coulter at the University of Arizona. Unable to debate her, the liberal weenies had to rush the 110 pound woman and try to hit her with pies. Fortunately for her, liberals throw like girls.
On March 29, liberals’ intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.
Ok, I have cited SPECIFIC instances of liberal violence in the face of a fact driven debate in which they couldn’t form a coherent respones. I challenge liberals here to cite as many cases where liberal speakers in the last 5 years have been attacked by conservatives in the same physically violent manner.
No generalities, cite specific cases give the place and date, who was involved and what violence was perpetrated. I fully expect liberals to respond with generalites, “gut feelings” and epithets.
I have no problem with this, this woman was a school teacher. We dont have room for this kind of bullshit in our schools.
I’m not excusing these folks in Texas, but technically, they fired her for insubordination, not for being gay. Granted, according to the article, it was a thinly veiled pretext, but my question then is this: Even if such a anti-discrimination law was on the books, would it have prevented this action? Sure, the teacher may have had more recourse, but the school district was bound to get rid of her no matter what, and she did get a settlement, even without such a law. I’m not arguing against anti-discrimination laws; I’m asking how truly effective they are when employers can always fall back on insubordination, job performance, economic cutbacks, etc. to get rid of employees.
VCRW~
Some of these may be outside your 5 year time horizon, but let’s see:
1. Tim McVeigh blows up Federal building and kills a lot of people.
2. Eric Rudolph blows up health clinics and pleads guilty to murder.
3. Matthew Hale was recently found guilty of conspiring to have a federal judge killed.
4. Matthew Shepard was tied to a fencepost and murdered for the crime of being gay.
5. On the fourth of July, 2000, JR Warren, 26, who was black and gay, was beaten to death by three men in West Virginia, then run over by a car to make it look like a hit and run.
6. Pfc. Barry Winchell, 21, was beaten to death by fellow servicemembers while sleeping in his cot on July 5, 1999 at Fort Campbell, Ky. His Army colleagues thought (correctly) that he was gay, so they killed him.
Now I don’t condone pie throwing. It is extremely rude and sophomoric. But the violence done by those on the right in this country is alarming. Yet somehow the Anne Coulters and David Horowitz (Da Ho to his friends) never seem to work condemnation of these acts into their “acts”.
Were does this article even say this women was fired for being a lesbian?
This is the exact reason we do not want this kind of legislation in Wa.
Quite frankly, we have an at-will work force in this state and mandating who you cannot hire/fire is a bunch of Bullshit
It is up to the standards of the community, which happens to be in Texas, not on Capitol Hill. There you libs go imposing your values on others again.
Ha Ha you folks kill me: How about noticing that Democrat Frank Chopp is blocking from a vote the proposed legislation that would make an individual’s 3rd DUI a Felony. I guess you have to go out and kill someone drinking before you meet Frank Chopp’s criteria for a felony! I guess we wouldn’t want to take the voting rights away from these wonderful drunks either, as they do have a right to vote for losers like Frank!
Chuck @ 3 said, “We dont have room for this kind of bullshit in our schools.”
Just what kind of “bullshit” are you referring to Charles?
Daniel,
I have to say, I support your question on this.
gs @8
He wouldnt want Justice Bobbi (drink, drive, hit and run) Bridge to lose her seat on the bench. Remember, Gregoire came running to her aide after she went on the tear with her mercedes.
Daniel @9 You know EXACTLY what ‘bullshit’ he was referring to… bigots are not known for their subtlety.
VCRW@ 2 LOL!!!! You are kidding right! Let’s see… ‘our’ president goes around the nation on a tax-payer funded campaign tour and excludes anyone who even looks like they might disagree. He also forced people to sign loyalty oaths before entering a campaign events. He fires anyone on his own staff that disagrees with him. Huh, so Bush is liberal now?
And thanks to Senators Hargrove and Sheldon and the entire WA state Senate Republican caucus, this kind of employment discrimination is perfectly legal in Washington state. Makes you proud, huh?
I think someone has to ask the initial question:
What groups should be of a protected class that cannot be fired because of that character?
Right now employers can fire someone for any cause whatever including illogical ones such as an employe that doesn’t like the color of an employees shoes on a particular day.
The current protected class members are based on race, gender, miliary status, and some others.
Which ones should be added? Smokers? Gays? People with purple shoes?
Maybe the law should be that employees should not be fired in any job except “for cause.”
Otherwise, I wouldn’t be too shocked based on the firing, people are fired in Washington for a million silly reasons everyday and its totally legal.
angryvoter @ 7:
It is up to the standards of the community, which happens to be in Texas, not on Capitol Hill. There you libs go imposing your values on others again.
I agree with you to a point. If I was gay and living in NE Texas, I would run like hell to Austin, Atlanta, or someplace else with a little more breathing room but that’s me.
Let’s talk about “imposing values” though. If it were not for us libs “imposing values” through legislation, hanging blacks in NE Texas would be legal (de facto if not de jure as Don would say) as well.
Where does it become an overreach angryvoter? Were getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes a liberal overreach? How about striking cohabitation laws from the books? Is legislating against miscegenation acceptable? Was striking the Asian exclusion laws just a bunch of damn liberals mucking around where they didn’t belong?
Here’s the real point of this harrangue. One person’s basic rights are another person’s legislative overreach. I am not completely comfortable with any of the equal protection laws. They ARE abused. So is freedom of speech, right to a trial by jury, and any one of a number of rights that we cherish in this country. If you don’t want rights to be abused by anyone, don’t grant them in the first place.
Weigh in the balance what the cost is of the occasional nonsense suit vs the damage done by denying a group of people equal rights under the law, and go from there.
JSA…. In the instance provided by goldy, there is absolutely no proof that this case is even remotely valid.
Therefro the immediate assumption is that this is gay bashing or homophobic nehavior on the part of the school system, for all we know this woman could have been a complete asshold who happened to win a championship and the town had just had enough of her.
Erik @ 14
Quoting http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/bill.....15.HBR.htm :
The state Law Against Discrimination provides that a person has the right to be free from discrimination based on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal. This right applies to employment, public accommodations, real estate transactions, insurance, and commerce.
People should not be fired from a job for something they are born with or because they are fulfilling a duty to their country. These are the things these laws protect. One’s race and gender are clearly determined at birth. If Uncle Sam has called on you for military or jury duty you should be protected. Smokers choose to smoke. People who wear purple shoes choose to wear purple shoes. They willingly make choices. This issue is whether people who are homosexual are so by choice.
I believe the world has come to understand that it is not a choice, and instead a fundamental part of your humanity if you are heterosexual or homesexual. What we are seeing here is a last gasp, desperate attempt, by those who are unwilling to accept that truth, to deny it, and the rights that should obviously come from it. They are trying to turn back the clock 30 or more years. This is not a lifestyle choice folks, it is a natural fact of life and one that has been prejudiced and discriminated against for far too long.
prr~
My guess is that any heterosexual male coach who won a championship in Texas wouldn’t get fired no matter how big an asshole he was. And if you actually read the article, I think you’ll see there was quite a bit of proof. Probably not enough for a staunch defender of the “at will” doctrine as you, but enough for the Board to pay off both remaining years of her contract.
prr @ 16:
Yeah. I understand that. An article in the NY Times isn’t much to go on.
Maybe the gym teacher and her partner were both complete a-holes at the same time, so they were both terminated. It happens. I won’t completely discount it, but I’ll admit to being a bit skeptical.
EEOC rules do not provide an invincible shield so that no woman, no person of color, etc. can ever be fired. It just means that the employer has to do some explaining as to why someone is terminated. Usually if a person at work is so much trouble that they deserve firing, that’s not a big burden.
My question is, when is enough enough? Should all the EEOC rules be revoked, so an employer doesn’t have to explain why all the executives are Gudjarati Indians, or whatever? Do you want to rehash Loving v. Virgina? Would the doctrine of seperate but equal work out better?
I know you hate it when I do this, but I don’t find this individual case very interesting or worthy of debate because there is so little information, and you can freely speculate on what was really going on here, as can I, and we probably won’t agree on motive. I’d rather talk about basic principles as to why and how the state has a right to intervene in the interest of equal protection, and when that becomes an undue burden on employers that simply allows people who are a pain in the butt to stick it to their (ex-)boss.
Daniel @ 17:
Good post. I’d like to add something to this because there is a tendency for our pals on the other side of the fence to take some liberties with their argument style.
Companies, schools, and other organizations have dress codes. These have been enforced both though custom and law. If I am a teacher (gay or straight) and show up to work in full drag, there is a disciplinary process to deal with this.
(not that I would ever show up in drag. So much shaving to do. So much blood.)
Companies, schools, and other organizations have a code of conduct. If I grope the girls’ derrieres or wink at the boys in the locker room, it doesn’t matter what my sexual orientation is. That is over the line, and I should be fired.
Claiming that equal protection laws would allow this or any one of a number of other unacceptable behaviors is setting up a staw man.
Steven @ 18
There is a simple answer to your question.
This is the very reason we do not want this type of legislation, to date it is already to hard to get rid of a bad or problem employee, especially one that falls into a minority status. Often times companies and or communities (as id the case here) settle to avoid the costly legal battles.
daniel @ 17 said
People should not be fired from a job for something they are born with
but Goldy said this in his I love America thread
Okay, maybe I wouldn’t mind turning JCH or Cynical gay… that’d be kind of funny.
so which is it- born with or turned?
and steven, the crime involving Matthew Shepard was later found to be drug related. I believe it was on 60 minutes.
JSA @ 15,
Good discourse, cant respond now… Later tonight. I think we are not far apart on this one.
chardonnay @ 22:
so which is it- born with or turned?
It’s sort of a continum, actually. Rather like large quantities of liquor makes ugly women attractive, at least temporarily.
and steven, the crime involving Matthew Shepard was later found to be drug related. I believe it was on 60 minutes.
Well, ABC news did a story (see here that alleges something like that. The evil liberal media is OK when it proves your point?
I doubt you’ve ever been around people seriously strung out on meth, but divining their intent for anything is pretty damn hard.
Divining intent for someone who is five years into a life sentence and looking hard for mitigating circumstances that would allow him to be a free man at some point in the future. That’s not hard at all.
jsa at 19: “…and you can freely speculate on what was really going on here, as can I, and we probably won’t agree on motive. I’d rather talk about basic principles as to why and how the state has a right to intervene in the interest of equal protection, and when that becomes an undue burden on employers that simply allows people who are a pain in the butt to stick it to their (ex-)boss.”
Once again, you’re very articulate!
I couldn’t agree more, these cases require you to climb into people’s heads and figure out their intent, a difficult task at best. Where we as a society draw a line between “at will” employment and equal protection is the $64K question.
oh, alleges, uh huh, I see. alleges! anyway the bottom line is that it was a drug crime not a hate crime. I find it truly amazing how liberals cannot see the facts.
did you meen continum or continuum?
so if you are drunk you will do anything, a variety?
kind of like a dog that humps any leg. LOL, oh you are funny.
Nindid@12
No bigot here, but the people that teach our kids need to be normal…not “alternative”. I could care less otherwise where she works, whether at Boeing or for the state highway dept, but not in a school or child oriented enviorment.
Now that also goes if they die their hair lime green, have several piercings or anything unusual like that, we need people with as few issues as possible in kid enviorments.
No bigot here, but yeah, our teachers need to approximate June and Ward Cleaver! No fat people, no blacks, no Jews. Nothing out of the ordinary in polite society. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!
Chuck – What a load of bull. What constitutes “normal” for you? Anyone in your own likeness? Anyone like the majority? What century do you live in man?
chardonnay @ 26:
Since you make quite a point of your faith and piety, please read Matthew 7:12, think about it, and come back to debate again when you can do so without being rude and disrespectful.
correcting your spelling was rude, I am sorry. And here I criticize don for the very same thing.
please show me where I have made “quite a point of your faith and piety’ I do not recall ever mentioning anything like that anywhere. it is only you assuming because I disagree with your orientation, wait scratch that, choice.
VCRW:
Shame one must use foreign sources to get a factoid or two. This is from the BBC as broadcast on the Canadian CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html
30…Dan K: so you think Chuck is too narrow. how liberal are you? are there any rules of behaviour or dress in the schools for you ? pink spike hair and a dress on your male pe teacher just fine by you ?
the worry of the right is that the left seems to have no limits in “acceptable” behaviour.
chadonnay @ 32:
I am not Don. I make a point of being polite to everyone here, and expect the same in return. This is what I teach my five year-old daughter. She gets it. It’s an easy lesson to learn.
Now regarding alleges, that is what I said, and I stand by that. News organizations are not unbiased deliverers of God’s Own Truth. A reporter looks for an angle on a story, interviews a few people to substantiate that angle, and goes to press with the story. Reporters try hard to get it right. However, they are human, and very few stories are completely linear. Go rent Rashômon tonight. Once you’ve seen it, tell me what you think.
If the Shepard case comes up for review on appeal, planting the idea that it was not a hate crime, but a few guys out of their heads on meth who showed poor judgment, well, that could have a dramatic effect on how long these fine individuals spend in prison. There is a strong incentive for the two men at the center of this case to say exactly what they are saying.
If you are trying to argue that gay-bashing is a media-manufactured phenomena, let me give you very personal, first-hand testimony that this is not the case. I grew up slight, awkward, and with a voice that didn’t break until I was about 25 (cigarettes seemed to help). I was marked as gay through most of my time in school. Nobody ever killed me or stabbed me, I am happy to say, but I got more than my fair share of beatings, spittings, etc.
That being said, I have mixed feelings about “hate crimes” laws. Murder and assault are both serious crimes that deserve serious punishments, regardless of the status of the victim. While “hate crimes” laws make it easier for prosecutors to met out strong punishment when the other facts of the case might be tenuous, my gut says the law should not be conducted that way.
Rush – So for you being homosexual means you dress different? It means you do stuff that would be against rules of behavior? Can you elaborate on what kind of things you are thinking of?
VCRW @ 2
While I don’t condone the pie-throwing, it’s not surprising that advocating violence against liberals is coming back to haunt her. If you ride the tiger, you may get bitten. As one of America’s most visible hate peddlers, she can’t expect to be popular with everyone.
AV @ 7
You can have any values you want until your bigotry starts to harm others. If it’s okay to fire someone from a job for being gay, is it also okay to beat someone up for being gay? In each case, the bigots’ actions hurt an innocent person, for which they should be held criminally and civilly responsible.
Aren’t we all getting off topic here.
This is not about beating someone up. For that matter it has not been proven that this woman is being fired for being gay.
You are all jumping to conclusion without any basis of fact behind your opinion.
Big surprise on this board!
Additionally, I would like to point out, what the hell is this story even doing on this board,, isn’t goldy’s tagline that this is the “the straight poop on WA politics & the press”
chuck @ 27
I feel the same way about religious zealots and right wingers — they should be working Boeing or the highway department, not teaching my kids.
chardonnay @ 33:
You won’t concede anything, will you?
You have gone on about Darwin being crap, argue that the First ammendment does not separate church and state, railed against secularism, and said that as superintendent of public instruction, you would teach Intelligent Design in school.
No. You have (to the best of my knowledge), never come out and stated flat-out that you are a Christian. However, if you’re not, you would be the first agnostic I’ve met to run with quite this line of argument.
I am not concerned with your faith, frankly. Your appalling lack of respect for other people’s point of view, and the dripping contempt with which you display that lack of respect bothers me much more than where you are Sunday morning.
jsa @ 36:“Murder and assault are both serious crimes that deserve serious punishments, regardless of the status of the victim.”
Yes, I thought this discussion would get to hate crimes, and now that its broached, I never thought hate crime legislation made sense. What makes the status of Victim A or Victim B important if they’ve both been murdered? They’re both just as dead and the families and friends are just as truamatized. A is not more or less of a victim than B. I don’t care if A or B were gay, black, white, straight, had lots of money, no money, a nice car, etc., the guilty people need to be punished, and I don’t care what was the motivation, NO motivation justifies violent crime. I don’t like treating some motivations better or worse than others.
prr @ 40
‘what the hell is this story even doing on this board,, isn’t goldy’s tagline that this is the “the straight poop on WA politics & the press”’
Goldy can write about whatever the hell he wants to write about. It’s his blog, and it ain’t a democracy! Besides, it is his birthday :-)
prr: “Additionally, I would like to point out, what the hell is this story even doing on this board,, isn’t goldy’s tagline that this is the “the straight poop on WA politics & the press””
If Goldy wants to post on the homoerotic subtext of the relationship of Captain Kirk and Spock from Star Trek, he could, because ITS HIS BLOG.
Start your own if you don’t care for it, he says respectfully.
>>I feel the same way about religious zealots and right wingers – they should be working Boeing or the highway department, not teaching my kids.<< Ahhhh-men!
Opps…meant to say “Ahhh-men!
“I had a good relationship with him until he was promoted,” Stephens said. “But then he and some of the school board members really started singling me out and holding me to a different standard than the other teachers.
Despite the trouble, in 2004 Stephens was named Teacher of the Year. She was also named Coach of the Year for three of the five years she led the girls’ basketball team. The Wal-Mart Corporation selected her as one if its Teachers of the Year. And last year, she led the team to within one game of the state championship final.
Stephens and the school district signed the settlement agreement on March 16, the day before a hearing was scheduled before the Texas Education Agency.
The facts of the case itself reveal more than most of the speculation above. A former school counselor was appointed superintendent, by a group of his friends from his church who had won a majority of seats on the school board. The new super used his authority to remove, what, contrary to prr’s remark in # 19, was a very fine teacher and coach. The issue was so clearly one of religious discrimination that the district agreed to payoff a very lucrative settlement rather than lose in a court fight. Legislation that protects human beings from discrimination also significantly reduces the costs of misguided zealous evangelizing under the cover of bureaucratic processes. The teacher chose to accept the settlement because it was easier to letgo and get the $$ upfront, than to wage the battle, end up having to continue to teach in the same oppressive and repressive community, and still get the $$.
spyder @ 48:“Legislation that protects human beings from discrimination also significantly reduces the costs of misguided zealous evangelizing under the cover of bureaucratic processes.”
While I certainly recognize and agree with the intent of such legislation, if the result is the same, what’s the point? She’s still out of a job. I’m asking as I want to hear about the effectiveness of such legislation in regards to employment, as I know there’s a lot of smart folks here that can help me out.
Could it be that she was a GIRL’S BASKETBALL COACH? She has to be in the same locker room with underage girls and so on… Goldy use the brain God gave you and quit throwing out sorry assed propaganda.
The state Law Against Discrimination provides that a person has the right to be free from discrimination based on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal.
Yes, so the question is what classes of people, if any, should be added to the list.
jsa @ 36
you miss the point entirely my dear. the matthew shepard ordeal was brought up by steven @5 in an attempt to counter VRWC @ #2 liberals bad behavior & acts of intolerance to conservative crimes. as if. I am merely pointing out what it really was.
If you think conservatives do not understand media bias, please, we have what FOX!! The liberal media consists of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC. Liberal print is NY times, WA Post, Seattle PI, LA Times and just about every paper out there.
are you saying ABC was biased when it did this story? That to me is like saying Maria cantwell was TARDY, Tom Delay is EVIL.
Extremely well said jsa on beacon hill @ 42.
37 Dan: I said nothing re being homosexual. I asked if there are any rules that you would have for say, teachers. re dress etc. don’t answer a ? with a ?. does anything “go” with you ?
chardonnay @ 52:
Thank you for a reasonably civil response.
All stories are biased. Go watch Rashômon. I mean it.
Human beings are capable of good and evil. Sitting on this board and saying that conservatives are more or less evil than liberals is like two groups of monkeys flinging feces at each other. I have evolved, thank you, and don’t want play that particular game.
If you do, go out and play soccer this weekend. Everyone gets to kick the bejeezus out of each other, it’s all in good fun, you get to drink after the game, and there are no hard feelings.
You stated with authority that Matthew Shepard’s killing was a drug deal gone bad. No more, no less. That may be true, but the fact that ABC said so doesn’t make it so.
chardonnay @ 52:
Besides, bias is all relative. From my point of view, I would argue that only Pacifica has a left-wing slant. NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CBS, NY Times, etc. are all tools of the corporate oligarchy.
// No, I don’t believe that. Just try that thought on for size.
Rush @ 54 – This is not about dress codes. You belittle the issue, or show total ignorance of it, by diverting the discussion there. As for my answer on that, yes, dress codes can exist and can be enforced.
Someone with an idetity crisis @ 50 wrote, “Could it be that she was a GIRL’S BASKETBALL COACH? She has to be in the same locker room with underage girls and so on… ”
This is just such an shallow argument. There are hundreds of men coaches of girl teams at all levels, and by your line of thinking you would be suggesting that a heterosexual male coach of a girls team would necessarily be cause of concern. While there have been cases of problems, the cases do not make the rule. A lesbian coach of a girls team therefore is no different.
All of you just keep coming up with your justifications by speculation. But in so doing you do not address the original point of Goldy’s post regarding the ramifications of not passing HB 1515.
I just came on to trash white whine.
Your Right JSA she preaches the total Halleluyah Chorus, then always questions my cult upbringing. Are you embarassed to admit your Christianity now Whine? Christianity used to be something to be proud of, until you allowed the preachings to be corrupted. shame on you.
Dan: I had a friend who would not let his daughter play for a very talented lesbian BB coach. I said his daughter was missing out on learning from such a great coach and a great person as well. I employed gays. I have gay friends as well. and neighbors. so I am not the big bigot you might think.
re Goldy’s post: I do not support discrimination. I also feel that affirmative action is still needed to level the playing field, but hope one day it is not.
not all of us on the right feel the same re every issue. please do not assume we do.
jon @ 43 & 49:
You bring up some good discussion points. I will try to get to them later tonight. Watch this space.
V @ 2
Tom Delay orders FAA to track plane of missing Democrats for personal gains. Thus endangering other people by having the FAA perform an illegal activity and stray from their true duties. The Pie Throwers are the Fringe, this guy is the head of house.
George Bush uses smear campaign against War hero John McCain in 2000 Primary. You guys even eat your own. Sam Reed anyone?
both sides do this. Clinton did not even invite Carter to the 1992 Democratic Convention much less have him speak.
politicians are for their own reelection. Gregoire blamed an underling for a failing. my show is popular because there is lots of dirt on the left (as well as the right).
Daniel K@30
What constitutes normal for me? Well in a classroom with impressionable kids a person that represents the averages of the society they live in, in this society it happens to be hetorosexual, normal thinking with few mental issues, speaking plain english not eubonics or spanish, a person that wears normal conservative clothing with respect to their sex (not choice but sex) A person that thinks fairly rational about what is right and what is wrong, and doesnt need to attract a lot of attention their way. that is my choice around kids…now as for a bartender or coal miner…whatever floats yer boat so to speak!
Chuck @ 63
Fine, Chuck. You can stop defining what it means to be a bigot. We all know that you are a bigot now. As a bigot, I won’t hire you but I guess that is my right.
Jsa @ 55, & 42
Glad you have evolved. You see the article as biased and I do not. Media, unlike some blogs, have a responsibility to tell facts. See Dan Rather C-BS.
You said I brought it up w/authority…did my bringing it up frighten you?
So why should I concede anything, will you? I think I made my point, you just refuse to accept it. If you want to compare liberal acts of violence to conservative acts of violence, use better examples. The two dudes involved in killing Matthew Shepherd were not Republicans were they? It’s not a religious issue is it?
Yes, I think ID should be taught in schools, is evolution an exclusive idea, the one and only explanation? Tolerance would be to teach both, right? You want homosexuality (sexual orientation) brought into the classroom right? Why, because in your opinion heterosexuality is not exclusive. Tolerance.
I don’t advocate removing ANY, ANY, historic statues such as the Ten Commandments, or even the Statue of Liberty from public display. If you start on that path where does it end? The entire debate is secular vs. religious, the dripping is a two way street. Your party claims to be the tolerant ones yet you are the very party that sets out to destroy the adversary. The pot calling the kettle black. You defend, or are silent on, the actions of Barney Frank yet demonize Tom Delay. For some reason you don’t see that, or you refuse to. I’m just calling it like I see it, what’s fair is fair.
Jon @ 43
Hate crime laws provide higher penalties for violent crimes motivated by hate. Crimes motivated by hate often are more violent and result in greater injury to the victim. By opposing these laws, you support lighter sentences for these criminals.
Bob E.@66
No I support an equal sentance for an equal crime, with punishment hard and swift.
chardonnay @ 65
ID can be taught in schools. Perhaps in a “Comparative Origins Myths” class or some other cultural studies course.
ID cannot be taught as science, however, because it is not science. Don’t get me wrong, Science is ALL ABOUT alternative theories and hypotheses. But, the one absolute rule in science is that explanation must be “naturalistic”. That is, we don’t allow supernatural explanation into science. Why? Because supernatural theories are untestable. And, because there are an infinite number of supernatural explanations for any given phenomena, and it is impossible to tell any of them apart. In other words, supernatural theories are not informative.
and how has evolution proven anything scientific? specifically?
It called Darwin’s Theory after all.
chardonnay @ 69
and how has evolution proven anything scientific? specifically?
Good question. The biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)
once said that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Indeed, a huge amount of what we understand in biology, medicine and agriculture owes a large debt to three fundamental breakthroughs in biological thinking: Evolution by natural selection by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, the mechanism of inheritance by Gregor Mendel, and the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. Of course, what is known as evolutionary theory today is highly modified from what Darwin, Wallace and Mendel originally wrote, and has had contributions from thousands of other scientists. This body of science has been refined, tested, parts rejected, tweaked and subject to intense scruteny and expansion into new domains. The fundamental discoveries of Darwin, Wallace and Mendel were just starting points that catalyzed rich new directions in scientific discovery.
So what has evolutionary biology done for you lately? It has provided the framework for understanding the origin of, maintenance of, and cures for many classes of diseases like cancers, the emergence of new infectious diseases (like influenzas, different strains of HIV), and inherited diseases (retinoblastomas, hemophilia, hemoglobinopathies); and, thousands of other disease-related applications. The medical applications are a tiny sampling of just the applied aspects of evolutionary theory.
Bob E. @ 66: I thought that’s why we have different degrees of assault and murder, to address the violence of the act. What makes, for example, aggrevated assault better or worse than a hate crime? So in your book, the person committing, say, a rape and murder because “she asked for it” is “less guilty” than somebody who kills becuase of race?
Bob E: “Hate crime laws provide higher penalties for violent crimes motivated by hate. Crimes motivated by hate often are more violent and result in greater injury to the victim. By opposing these laws, you support lighter sentences for these criminals.”
If I’m double posting, my apologies in advance.
Please explain to me then the difference between simple assualt & aggrevated assualt, murder & aggrevated murder. I thought these different charges were created specifically to address the “greater injury” cases. So, to turn your arguement around, if somebody kills someone because they insulted them that’s somehow “better” than killing becuase of race? Where’s the logic in that?
jsa @ 36
Godzilla was not a true story.
dj @ 71
for every copy/paste job you provide I can post an opposing view. But I will not. I will say it is impressive to know just how many people were most likely offended by Southern Baptist president, Bill Clinton’s behavior on the rug in the oval office. Stats are from 1990, and have increased since.
1. Southern Baptist -members18,923,085
2. United Methodist – members 11,072,711
3. Catholic – members 53,308,466
4. Churches of Christ – members 1,680,041
5. Presbyterian – members 3,543,706
6. Assemblies of God – members 2,160,839
7. Evangelical Lutheran – members 5,222,445
8. Church of Jesus Christ of LDS members 3,540,484
9. Jehovah’s Witnesses – members 1,381,000
10. Episcopal Church -members 2,429,013
11. Jewish-members 5,800,000
Now that looks like 105,800,000 to me give or take a million. Out of 295,893,787, Go Rove!!!
chardonnay @ 74:
Godzilla was not a true story.
Dear God I hope you were trying to be funny. If you were, the joke fell flat. Did you think I was referring you to a monster movie?
Are you familiar with the story I was referring you to? Of course it was not a true story. It is an allegory. A story which exists to illustrate a greater truth.
chardonnay @
You said I brought it up w/authority…did my bringing it up frighten you?
No. Not at all. I can cite a story which discusses the basis of evolution, and bring it up with all the authority in the world. I can cite twenty sotries like that. You will still insist it is horse manure. You cited one story. It is one possibility of many. You latch on to it like it it was carried down on stone tablets because it fits your worldview. There is a fine line between being principled and just pigheaded.
So why should I concede anything, will you? I think I made my point, you just refuse to accept it. If you want to compare liberal acts of violence to conservative acts of violence, use better examples. The two dudes involved in killing Matthew Shepherd were not Republicans were they? It’s not a religious issue is it?
If you have a valid point, I’ll concede it. Ask prr, who I don’t agree with about much of anything. I don’t think Mr. Shepard’s killing has much to do with Republicans or Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives or even secular and religious people. You seem to keep trying to break the world into two groups. Take up soccer. The fresh air will do you good.
jon @ 43 & 49:
Finally I get a minute to answer back on the points you brought up earlier today.
Hate-crimes legislation and EEOC rules draw from the same basic philosophy. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary legislation. I am not very familiar with criminal law, the operations of a prosecutor’s office and what they have to deal with in order to get a conviction. Maybe Don could shed some light on this.
EEOC gets into the operation of companies, something with which I am intimately familiar.
In another lifetime, I worked on the engineering staff of an electrical company down on the waterfront. I designed power panels for boats.
They had a team of about 30 electricians. 100% male.
One day, a female journeyman came in and applied for a job. She had her card, and had work experience. They talked to her for about 10 minutes and hustled her out the door.
A few days later, they brought another electrician on staff. Again, male.
There was no stated policy anywhere that they didn’t hire female electricians. Nor that they didn’t hire black electricians. I wouldn’t even say that the management of the company who made those decisions were particularly overtly racist or sexist. It’s just that hiring decisions happened to work that way. The fact that pulling wires on boats is dirty, difficult work that requires no small amount of physical strength exacerbated the gender imbalance a lot.
This was a small shop. These things happen. Thing is, many much larger shops work the same way.
EEOC regulations exist to try to avoid circumstances like this. Because you are working with situations where there is no explicit policy that condones racism or sexism, simply a culture that tolerates it, you wind up with this very awkward set of regs that in essence asks “When did you stop beating your wife?”.
Can these regs be abused? Oh goodness yes! Are they what I would consider good law? No way. Unfortunately, we’re not a gender-blind or color-blind society yet. Like a lot of things, they are a “least-worst” situation.
Take care,
Re: Hate Crimes laws (jsa @ 36, Jon @ 43, Bob E. @ 66, Chuck @ 67, Jon @ 72-73):
In Washington we have a law against Malicious Harassment: RCW 9A.36.080. It is a crime on its own, not just a sentencing enhancement.
jsa on beacon hill has mixed feelings about laws like this:
Agreed. But Malicious Harassment is a separate crime with its own elements that the prosecutor must allege and prove. Charging a person with Malicious Harassment doesn’t give prosecutors a pass on proving any other charges like assault. (They can charge whatever they want, if they think they can prove it in court.)
Jon gets straight to the point:
Same thing applies; regardless of whether or not a crime is motivated by bigotry or hate, the elements of that offense have to be proved in court. Malicious Harassment is addressed separately because it is a separate problem.
Hate crime laws are on the books because the legislature saw such crimes as serious and increasing despite our then-existing criminal laws. Those traditional laws were not doing a good enough job of encompassing threats and deterring crimes based on malice toward a group — specifically, toward a person’s perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or handicaps. (See the Legislature’s findings at RCW 9A.36.078.)
The legislators saw violence being committed in this state against interracial and interreligious couples and their children; cross burnings being used to threaten and terrorize blacks and their families; and Nazi swastikas employed to threaten and intimidate Jews and their families. They decided our state has an interest in preventing crimes and threats motivated by bigotry and bias, even beyond the state interest in preventing crime generally. It’s not that crimes motivated by hate are “more violent” in and of themselves, as Bob E. supposed; it’s that they are more pernicious for other reasons.
For example, someone who commits a hate crime against one member of a class is very likely willing to continue such acts against others in that class — that makes a hate crime perpetrator potentially more dangerous than, say, someone committing a single crime of passion or opportunity. And hate crimes are commonly intended to (and do) intimidate other members of the victim’s community, leaving them feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected by the law. As a result, members of minority communities become fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups and of the government that is supposed to protect them. Hate crimes have significant effects beyond what crime does by itself.
Hate crimes have a special potential to fragment communities and hurt our society. It is appropriate to address that problem with hate crime legislation — along with education.
chardonnay @ 74, you are probably correct about the offended ones. You know, the 105 million or so that you claim……more than likely 50%+ do the exact same thing every chance they get… especially if their other half comes across as frigid as you do
VCRW @ 2 Why is it the talibaptists/theocons/rethugnicans cannot tolerate FACTS? Give me an answer…. puhhhleeeeease!!!!
David @ 79:
Thanks for sharing.
What I’m getting at is one can prosecute for malicious harassment when the evidence for an assault charge is lacking. This is exactly what happened in the Painter case a few weeks ago. The prosecution was unable to land a conviction for first-degree assault for any of the defendents, so they had to settle for two convictions of assault-4 + malicious harassment.
To a non-lawyer, it doesn’t seem like a very good way to dispense criminal justice.
jpgee
J===Juvenile
P===Pathetic
G===Gnutcase
chardonnay @ 74
I will say it is impressive to know just how many people were most likely offended by Southern Baptist president, Bill Clinton’s behavior on the rug in the oval office. Stats are from 1990, and have increased since. . . .
WTF??? I have not idea what you are talking about or what this has to do with my previous post. This is the second night in a row when you have gone off into left. . . er. . . right field with nonsense unrelated to a post of mine you are responding to.
Chardonnay, tell the truth, do you have a drinking problem? Help is available!
jsa @ 81: you say that “one can prosecute for malicious harassment when the evidence for an assault charge is lacking. This is exactly what happened in the Painter case a few weeks ago.” This makes you unhappy, it seems.
But Malicious Harassment is not a substitute or shortcut for assault charges. It’s a different crime that the defendants committed. You can read about it here (including the details of the incident and the jury’s thoughts on the case).
By comparison, if a prosecutor charged someone with attempted murder and assault, and couldn’t get the attempted murder charge to stick, there would be nothing wrong with a conviction for assault. And on a historical note, I don’t think it was a miscarriage of justice for Al Capone to be convicted . . . of tax evasion.
Maybe you want pedophiles running daycares? Be a man and grow up!
Finger2u @ 85, that can’t happen, they are too busy running the national government’s business handouts in DC