While normally I like to hold fundie idjits up for ridicule on the main site, since this guy is a little fry, I thought Bilerico-Indiana was the place to issue this challenge. In a posting on Hoosier Access, Brian Sikma posted the following patently untrue drivel.
In addition to the fact that this legislation is unnecessary from a criminal law perspective, it is also unnecessary because it constituents a very real threat against religious liberty. In states where hate crimes laws exist, they have been used to threaten, intimidate, and silence those who seek to speak out about their beliefs on sexual morality. Men and women of faith, and particularly Christians, have been silenced under the guise of preventing crime because voicing their deeply held beliefs would lead, so the reasoning goes, to violent crimes being committed against those who are living in a lifestyle that is contrary to those beliefs.
The rest of the post is your standard rightwing lies and false herrings. Apparently, Sikma's casual homophobia allows him to spout off about legislation he's obviously not read. Otherwise, he's simply lying to frighten people.
After the jump I issue Brian a simple challenge: Put up or shut up.
Sikma goes on to claim that passing the legislation would infringe on religious people's freedom of speech regardless of the fact that the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act actually includes language that specifically includes sections dealing with religious speech. It also explicitly states that it only punish violent acts. Unless the pastor follows up on his sermon that gays and lesbians are going to hell by grabbing a shotgun and hastening Judgment Day for a "homosexual," nothing will happen. Pastors will still be free to make statements like "Gays and lesbians are an abomination," or "Transgender people will not be accepted into heaven" because it doesn't prohibit name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group.
In an earlier section of the post, Sikma writes as if Congress is in danger of passing this horrid hate crimes thing and apparently doesn't realize there's already a hate crimes law on the books. This act expands the coverage of existing laws to include not only victims of crime based on religion, race, color, and national origin, but also bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.
But back to my challenge to Brian Sikma:
It's obvious that you're either ignorant of the facts or a bald-face liar. Which is it? I'd like to use the first quote as an example, Brian. Either admit you have no idea what you're talking about and your bigotry is doing the talking or be, well, honest and say you're lying to attempt to frighten the sheeple. Because obviously untrue crap like this drives me nuts.
In states where hate crimes laws exist, they have been used to threaten, intimidate, and silence those who seek to speak out about their beliefs on sexual morality. Men and women of faith, and particularly Christians, have been silenced
Prove it, Brian. Who's been silenced? Where are they? Put up or shut up. I'll save you some time since you're obviously not the "do your homework" type... The answer is "no one." It hasn't happened. So - either you're ignorant or a liar. Which is it?