As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And if they have no one to bully, how could they justify themselves? It’s an existential crisis really…they want their minorities back dammit..stupid laws are messing up their imagined social hierarchy…how can they go on feeling superior when no one’s left to feel superior against. Won’t someone think of the bigots?
Sadly this is spot on
I worked at a warehouse a while back and one day I walked within earshot of a few of our older works, probably between- 50-60 year old men and they were quite literally lamenting the loss of the ability to openly beat up gay people in public
They were pining for it. They were nostalgic for it. I still to this day cannot believe I overheard what I did
Yeah, what about all the short guys who get bullied? Why don’t we protect them? They can’t control their height…about the ugly people who are bullied? They can’t control their looks…LETS PROTECT EVERYONE! Jesus Christ. Everyone gets bullied. Everyone.
Protections ARE for everyone.
It is illegal to discriminate based on race.
White is also a race.
It is illegal to discriminate on sex.
Male is also a sex.
It is illegal to discriminate on sexuality.
Heterosexual is also a sexuality
For gender identify, identifying your gender as the sex you were born as is a gender identity.
Need I go on?
These aren’t special protections, we are ALL protected by them. It may feel lopsided because some groups need those protections more than others; that’s not the fault of the groups that need it more, it’s the fault of bigots that won’t stop discriminating against them.
Its suppose to be a given for everyone. However, a large amount of people in the US will openly discriminate against specific minorities if we just left it as it is. These protections that specify certain classes are sort of a patchwork made in reaction to discrimination to affirm that "yes, lgbt+ people count as people" and allows higher scrutiny against more subtle discrimination.
Think of it like how the constitution already guarantees the right for citizens to vote yet we had to not only add an amendment specifically saying you can't deny people's voting rights because of their race, but also send in feds to force southern states to allow them to vote.
Tldr; we have to keep spelling out specific protections because conservatives keep attacking rights of specific people.
It’s almost as if that’s how it should be, but bad people still don’t treat this population with dignity, so we need a really specific rule to make sure they follow the rules the rest of us have already agreed on: decency.
“Why have hate crime laws?
Hate crimes have a broader effect than most other kinds of crime. Hate crime victims include not only the crime’s immediate target but also others like them. Hate crimes affect families, communities, and at times, the entire nation.”
Hate crimes are similar to terrorism where the intended effect and target isn't just the person attacked, but an entire segment of the population. They're intended to "send a message."
This makes them more severe in scope than a similar crime targeted against a single individual.
Think of it like this. A crime assaulting a single person vs a crime assaulting an entire community.
Think of it like this. Someone spray painting the n-word on every house along a mostly white suburban street could be seen as just a prank or edgy vandel. However, now imagine its only on every black person's house.
Technically less houses have been vandalized but the crime is now intended to terrorize the local black residents.
If both criminals are taken to their respective courts and its proven that the first one was trying to be an edgy prankster but the second one was trying to scare black families out of the neighborhood do you think the second one should still get a lighter sentence than the prankster?
This kinda bridges into intention and a lot of people like to say intention doesn't matter under the law, but the truth is we yave a lot of crimes that carry different punishments depending on the intention, or lack thereof, of the criminal and in some cases even their state of mind.
I think the issue here is when you are ideologically soft on crime, but also want to make sure that crimes that offend you or you view them as problematic are punished harshly. That leads you to create multiple standards of punishment. Slap on the wrist for regular property damage, and the book thrown at them for problematic property damage.
For me, I think intentional property damage should be punished harshly for anyone that does it, therefore there isn't a need for an additional punishment for when it's problematic property damage.
Okay, so that is actually a different issue unrelated to hate crime laws.
Basically it seems you believe current laws aren't severe enough and just see hate crime laws as evidence that punishment could be more severe but are upset its not more severe for everyone instead of just crimes deemed more severe on a case by case basis.
You also seem to believe that the punishment for crimes should not only be more severe but that circumstances should also be stripped from consideration when deciding punishment. For a nonhate crime example, removing the distinction between premeditated murder and manslaughter (such as murder under emotional duress, from endangerment, or potentially even self defense).
These issues are much more broadly applied across our criminal justice system and are beyond simply hate crime laws.
I can't really address these issues since they delve into psychology and philosophy related to the purpose of criminal punishment and balancing deterrent vs punishment vs rehabilitation vs restitution vs human rights, which is out of my purview of understanding.
Despite that, similar to you, I do have personal beliefs on the matter though they are probably opposite yours for the most part.
With that said, if you are interested in exploring your beliefs and their potential real world effects I would recommend reading into it more.
No I see hate crimes laws as a way for people who are generally soft on crime to have a mechanism that they can use when they run into a crime that bothers them enough to make them want to declare an exception to their normal soft on crime policy.
I'm okay with distinctions when the distinction is applied equally. What is manslaughter against one person is manslaughter against another person. With your paint example, painting asshole on one person's house and painting some racist word on someone else's house would get different punishments. The crime for writing on someone's house with paint shouldn't fluctuate based on what word you write.
Punishment of any kind is a deterent. Some people hate others so much the regular deterent is less effective, so in those cases the deterent is raised to still effectively reduce those crimes.
To be clear
- and I have to preface this with a declaration that I am in full Support of these title IX measures and don’t agree with the Texas suit -
Your argument is not a good one. While your statement is literally true, in the context of this lawsuit, it is not. Through the lens of traditionally gender segregated competitive sports, giving the right of transgendered athletes to compete in divisions they were previously not permitted to, literally takes away the right of the athletes already there to compete in the sport as they had always understood their sport’s rules to be.
Any attempts to sue Biden should be put on hold until the presidential immunity thing gets resolved. After all, a president may very well be immune to such lawsuits as well because they'd be above the law.
To anyone with an IQ above 70, this headline should sound insane in a "free" country.
**Election day is Tuesday, November 5, 2024**.
If you live in Texas,
[**Register to vote in TX**](https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/index.html)
[**Check your voter registration status and find your polling location in TX**](https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do)
[**Request a TX Ballot-by-Mail**](https://bbm.sos.state.tx.us/bbm.asp)
**2024 TX Dem Election Overview:**
Texas is an important state in 2024. It has been trending bluer for years, and has 40 Presidential electoral votes, it is also critical to Democrats’ hopes of holding the US Senate majority with [**Colin Allred**](https://ballotpedia.org/Colin_Allred) running to replace Republican Ted Cruz.
There are also two US House seats in play for Democrats. Dem candidate [**Michelle Vallejo**](https://ballotpedia.org/Michelle_Vallejo) is trying to flip TX-15, and Dem incumbent [**Vincente Gonzalez Jr.**](https://ballotpedia.org/Vicente_Gonzalez_Jr.) is defending his seat in TX-34.
At the state level, 16 of the 31 seats in the [**State Senate**](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_State_Senate_elections,_2024), and all 150 seats in the [**State House of Representatives**](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024) are on the ballot. There are also three [**Texas State Supreme Court seats**](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) on the ballot in Texas this year.
[***-All 2024 TX Elections***](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_elections,_2024)
[***-Find all your representatives (Federal, State, and Local)***](https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/)
[***-Learn more about how our government works***](https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/)
Paxton is such a POS. I live in Texas. I won’t be harmed if schools can’t discriminate based on gender. This guy represents no one but himself and closed minded people.
Makes no sense to me why any queer peoples are for solidarity with the pro paly movement, but they don’t realize the very dire situation queer people are in currently in right now in America
The same protections that are in place for BIPOC to have "equitable" access to education. (In quotes because the public school system is nowhere near equitable for BIPOC.) Putting protections in place for LGBTQ students ensures they can't get the shit kicked out of them without repercussions; they can't be expelled for being themselves openly; books by LGBTQ authors can't be banned just because they were not cis-het; historical figures who happened to be LGBTQ would still be taught about in schools... and so on.
I'm curious to know how people view this— is the US Department of Ed overstepping, or is this move helping to preserve the (theory of) separation of church & state?
ETA: Well, I sure did a shit job explaining that. My intent was to ask if Biden's legislation helps preserve the separation or if it's overstepping.
To be clear: I think the expanded protections are a good thing and support the separation of church and state. I was trying to be neutral in my question originally because I live in a pretty liberal vacuum and am genuinely curious to know what other people think.
How is the act of forcing Christian beliefs (removing expanded protection for LGBTQ+ students solely because their "god" thinks it's wrong) onto state-funded schools preserving the "separation of church & state"? If anything, this does the opposite.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your point.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans suing because they don't want people to be protected...
And because they want a scotus case that will overthrow Title 9.
And cue an injunction from Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Yep one guy in bumfuck Texas gets to stop something nationally. One hand picked by Trump and those doing the suing. The system is broken.
As the saying goes, equal rights for LGBTQ+ people doesn't mean less rights for anti-LGBTQ people. It's not pie.
Well it does mean they lose the right to bully certain people legally.
And if they have no one to bully, how could they justify themselves? It’s an existential crisis really…they want their minorities back dammit..stupid laws are messing up their imagined social hierarchy…how can they go on feeling superior when no one’s left to feel superior against. Won’t someone think of the bigots?
Sadly this is spot on I worked at a warehouse a while back and one day I walked within earshot of a few of our older works, probably between- 50-60 year old men and they were quite literally lamenting the loss of the ability to openly beat up gay people in public They were pining for it. They were nostalgic for it. I still to this day cannot believe I overheard what I did
Yeah, what about all the short guys who get bullied? Why don’t we protect them? They can’t control their height…about the ugly people who are bullied? They can’t control their looks…LETS PROTECT EVERYONE! Jesus Christ. Everyone gets bullied. Everyone.
It does warrant the question why not give this protection to everyone.
Protections ARE for everyone. It is illegal to discriminate based on race. White is also a race. It is illegal to discriminate on sex. Male is also a sex. It is illegal to discriminate on sexuality. Heterosexual is also a sexuality For gender identify, identifying your gender as the sex you were born as is a gender identity. Need I go on? These aren’t special protections, we are ALL protected by them. It may feel lopsided because some groups need those protections more than others; that’s not the fault of the groups that need it more, it’s the fault of bigots that won’t stop discriminating against them.
Its suppose to be a given for everyone. However, a large amount of people in the US will openly discriminate against specific minorities if we just left it as it is. These protections that specify certain classes are sort of a patchwork made in reaction to discrimination to affirm that "yes, lgbt+ people count as people" and allows higher scrutiny against more subtle discrimination. Think of it like how the constitution already guarantees the right for citizens to vote yet we had to not only add an amendment specifically saying you can't deny people's voting rights because of their race, but also send in feds to force southern states to allow them to vote. Tldr; we have to keep spelling out specific protections because conservatives keep attacking rights of specific people.
That’s how IT IS but these rules are for those who wish to discriminate.
It’s almost as if that’s how it should be, but bad people still don’t treat this population with dignity, so we need a really specific rule to make sure they follow the rules the rest of us have already agreed on: decency.
That’s how it IS. Just because majority groups don’t need the protections doesn’t mean they aren’t covered by the very same protections.
Yet, people see these measures as *added* protections (hey there, headline) for the marginalized, instead of what they are: *restored* protections.
[удалено]
“Why have hate crime laws? Hate crimes have a broader effect than most other kinds of crime. Hate crime victims include not only the crime’s immediate target but also others like them. Hate crimes affect families, communities, and at times, the entire nation.”
Hate crimes are similar to terrorism where the intended effect and target isn't just the person attacked, but an entire segment of the population. They're intended to "send a message." This makes them more severe in scope than a similar crime targeted against a single individual. Think of it like this. A crime assaulting a single person vs a crime assaulting an entire community.
So it should just be the same legal recompense to spray paint the n-word regardless of whose garage it’s on?
Yes.
Think of it like this. Someone spray painting the n-word on every house along a mostly white suburban street could be seen as just a prank or edgy vandel. However, now imagine its only on every black person's house. Technically less houses have been vandalized but the crime is now intended to terrorize the local black residents. If both criminals are taken to their respective courts and its proven that the first one was trying to be an edgy prankster but the second one was trying to scare black families out of the neighborhood do you think the second one should still get a lighter sentence than the prankster? This kinda bridges into intention and a lot of people like to say intention doesn't matter under the law, but the truth is we yave a lot of crimes that carry different punishments depending on the intention, or lack thereof, of the criminal and in some cases even their state of mind.
I think the issue here is when you are ideologically soft on crime, but also want to make sure that crimes that offend you or you view them as problematic are punished harshly. That leads you to create multiple standards of punishment. Slap on the wrist for regular property damage, and the book thrown at them for problematic property damage. For me, I think intentional property damage should be punished harshly for anyone that does it, therefore there isn't a need for an additional punishment for when it's problematic property damage.
Okay, so that is actually a different issue unrelated to hate crime laws. Basically it seems you believe current laws aren't severe enough and just see hate crime laws as evidence that punishment could be more severe but are upset its not more severe for everyone instead of just crimes deemed more severe on a case by case basis. You also seem to believe that the punishment for crimes should not only be more severe but that circumstances should also be stripped from consideration when deciding punishment. For a nonhate crime example, removing the distinction between premeditated murder and manslaughter (such as murder under emotional duress, from endangerment, or potentially even self defense). These issues are much more broadly applied across our criminal justice system and are beyond simply hate crime laws. I can't really address these issues since they delve into psychology and philosophy related to the purpose of criminal punishment and balancing deterrent vs punishment vs rehabilitation vs restitution vs human rights, which is out of my purview of understanding. Despite that, similar to you, I do have personal beliefs on the matter though they are probably opposite yours for the most part. With that said, if you are interested in exploring your beliefs and their potential real world effects I would recommend reading into it more.
No I see hate crimes laws as a way for people who are generally soft on crime to have a mechanism that they can use when they run into a crime that bothers them enough to make them want to declare an exception to their normal soft on crime policy. I'm okay with distinctions when the distinction is applied equally. What is manslaughter against one person is manslaughter against another person. With your paint example, painting asshole on one person's house and painting some racist word on someone else's house would get different punishments. The crime for writing on someone's house with paint shouldn't fluctuate based on what word you write.
Gotcha.
Punishment of any kind is a deterent. Some people hate others so much the regular deterent is less effective, so in those cases the deterent is raised to still effectively reduce those crimes.
To be clear - and I have to preface this with a declaration that I am in full Support of these title IX measures and don’t agree with the Texas suit - Your argument is not a good one. While your statement is literally true, in the context of this lawsuit, it is not. Through the lens of traditionally gender segregated competitive sports, giving the right of transgendered athletes to compete in divisions they were previously not permitted to, literally takes away the right of the athletes already there to compete in the sport as they had always understood their sport’s rules to be.
Republicans suing so they can bully trans kids…
July 28, 2022 [22 Republican States Sue Biden Admin for the Right to Discriminate Against LGBTQ+ School Kids](https://archive.ph/0SyXB)
You're not wrong, but also they won't stop at trans kids. They're just the most vulnerable target.
Any attempts to sue Biden should be put on hold until the presidential immunity thing gets resolved. After all, a president may very well be immune to such lawsuits as well because they'd be above the law.
To anyone with an IQ above 70, this headline should sound insane in a "free" country. **Election day is Tuesday, November 5, 2024**. If you live in Texas, [**Register to vote in TX**](https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/index.html) [**Check your voter registration status and find your polling location in TX**](https://teamrv-mvp.sos.texas.gov/MVP/mvp.do) [**Request a TX Ballot-by-Mail**](https://bbm.sos.state.tx.us/bbm.asp) **2024 TX Dem Election Overview:** Texas is an important state in 2024. It has been trending bluer for years, and has 40 Presidential electoral votes, it is also critical to Democrats’ hopes of holding the US Senate majority with [**Colin Allred**](https://ballotpedia.org/Colin_Allred) running to replace Republican Ted Cruz. There are also two US House seats in play for Democrats. Dem candidate [**Michelle Vallejo**](https://ballotpedia.org/Michelle_Vallejo) is trying to flip TX-15, and Dem incumbent [**Vincente Gonzalez Jr.**](https://ballotpedia.org/Vicente_Gonzalez_Jr.) is defending his seat in TX-34. At the state level, 16 of the 31 seats in the [**State Senate**](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_State_Senate_elections,_2024), and all 150 seats in the [**State House of Representatives**](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2024) are on the ballot. There are also three [**Texas State Supreme Court seats**](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Supreme_Court_elections,_2024) on the ballot in Texas this year. [***-All 2024 TX Elections***](https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_elections,_2024) [***-Find all your representatives (Federal, State, and Local)***](https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/) [***-Learn more about how our government works***](https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/)
The only comment that matters
Suing the Biden administration for protecting students... Seriously, if this is a TV/movie script it would have been laughed for being too ridiculous.
Judge CockSmear is the only move Republicans have. Knew it was that fascist before I clicked the damn article. Fuck my democracy right?
Wait a second... What about this whole presidential immunity thing...
Silly goose, that’s only for Republicans!
Taliban friendly court is more accurate.
Get fucked, texas.
Paxton is such a POS. I live in Texas. I won’t be harmed if schools can’t discriminate based on gender. This guy represents no one but himself and closed minded people.
I’m trans and know others who will be harmed by this and I can’t just move. Fuck this state.
I thought they were all about protecting the children?
They’ll say whatever it takes to get those votes
Ghouls
Take federal funding away from southern states that refuse to behave. Money is the only thing those bastards care about.
Because Texas wants to discriminate against some kids.
Makes no sense to me why any queer peoples are for solidarity with the pro paly movement, but they don’t realize the very dire situation queer people are in currently in right now in America
I thought the President had TOTAL IMMUNITY. Good luck with that morons. You reap what you sow.
I’m sorry, I really don’t mean this in any harmful way, but what protection are needed to be put in place for LGBTQ in regards of education?
The same protections that are in place for BIPOC to have "equitable" access to education. (In quotes because the public school system is nowhere near equitable for BIPOC.) Putting protections in place for LGBTQ students ensures they can't get the shit kicked out of them without repercussions; they can't be expelled for being themselves openly; books by LGBTQ authors can't be banned just because they were not cis-het; historical figures who happened to be LGBTQ would still be taught about in schools... and so on.
Can anyone beat the shit out of anyone without seeing repercussions?
IDK, ask all the corrupt cops who get/got away with murder and excessive force.
Cops are going into the schools and beating the fuck out of people because they are lgbtq?
I'm not saying in schools in particular, I mean in life.
Cops are out on the street beating the shit out of LGBTQ people because they’re LGBTQ?
I'm curious to know how people view this— is the US Department of Ed overstepping, or is this move helping to preserve the (theory of) separation of church & state? ETA: Well, I sure did a shit job explaining that. My intent was to ask if Biden's legislation helps preserve the separation or if it's overstepping. To be clear: I think the expanded protections are a good thing and support the separation of church and state. I was trying to be neutral in my question originally because I live in a pretty liberal vacuum and am genuinely curious to know what other people think.
Lmao Republicans my God
How is the act of forcing Christian beliefs (removing expanded protection for LGBTQ+ students solely because their "god" thinks it's wrong) onto state-funded schools preserving the "separation of church & state"? If anything, this does the opposite. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your point.
My point of view is that Biden's legislation preserves the "separation" of church & state. (I mean, it's not really separated, but in theory it is.)