Guess who is rolling into town? Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his posse of homo hatin' legal eagles. Moore, you may recall, wanted to slather Alabama Courthouses with the 10 Commandments. Ironically, he's narrowed his focus to homosexuals, a group noticeably absent from said Commandments. Hmmm. I guess he's moved on to Leviticus.
Anyhoo, The Foundation for Moral Law is coming to Pennsylvania to posit that our hate crimes law violates the state constitution. The issue centers around the provisions amending the hate crimes law to include sexual orientation. This led to the arrest of homegrown religious wing nut Michael Macavage who was protesting at Outfest in Philadelphia.
Macavage filed suit and the Commonwealth Court agreed with his claim that the *process* by which the original ethnic intimidation law had been amended was flawed. The process included an attachment to an agricultural bill.
Moore and his minions of hate celebrate the impending demise of the thought police.
“The law can punish actions, not 'our thoughts.' As we have seen in
and in various states and countries, 'hate crimes' are used to prohibit Christians and anybody else from referring to homosexual behavior as immoral or a sin. Philadelphia
See this is where it gets interesting. Moore and Macavage hide behind claims that this is about controlling their thoughts or their religious beliefs, but they aren't challenging the law on those grounds. They are challenging it on procedural grounds. Why? Because they know the law doesn't interfere with their hate thoughts.
They neglect to point out that Macavage and his Repenters were arrested for their actions. They were not peacefully protesting or handing out tracts or carrying some “homos are demon spawn” signs. They were intentionally disrupting a lawful gathering of the gay community. Their actions were disruptive, belligerent and intentional. Their free speech does not give them the right to tramp all over the rights of the objects of their protests.
So, I wonder why the legislation was part of the agricultural bill? If it is overturned on procedure, does that mean it can be reintroduced on its own merits? Assuming we can take care of this pesky marriage amendment and get our human relations definitions expanded. It would be like the trifecta of legislative years. Or something.
(h/t the man called Potter)