• optissima@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Your example is weak because they did a hate crime, which this would not have been. Do you have a better one?

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      My point is, you don’t get away with killing someone just because you used a car to do so, and I think that proves my point.

      Feel free to come up with some evidence of your own.

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Well, technically this seems to have been a hate crime as well - just not of a “protected class” (which I’m sure is a “shortcoming” of the law that they’ll get “addressed”).

      • optissima@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Technically, hate crimes consist of crime because of innate properties of an individual (+religion), which again this isn’t. No doubt they’ll codify something special for the rich soon, but still not a hate crime.

        • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          It’s that religion exception that belies the idea that it’s solely about qualities of a person that they have no control over. Beliefs are beliefs, regardless if they’re related to religion or capitalism.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            “Capitalist” isn’t a protected class, and I don’t think that hate crime legislation is very strong in the US in any case.

            • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              I’m aware it’s not a protected class - that was the point of my initial comment. But your rebuttal implied “hate crimes” were defined as those based upon properties of a person they had no control over - with a major caveat for religion as well. My point was if you can include something a person chooses to believe as an additional exception, then that opens up an extremely wide swath of possible exceptions.

              Don’t get me wrong - I’m not arguing against the inclusion of religion, just saying that the inclusion can be used to crowbar in any number of other “classes” to be protected as well simply because they’re based upon beliefs.