It’s Not What You Do…

(It’s What You Are Thinking When You Do It)

I hate “Hate Crime Laws.”

If thing's keep going like they are, soon my feelings about "Hate Crime Laws" might actually be against the law.

"Hate Crime laws" are like double negatives or oxymorons—they’re like deja vu all over again.

Hate crime laws aren’t concerned with what crime you commit, they worry about what you are thinking or believe at the time you commit the crime.

In my opinion, hate crime laws are stupid and unjust, not to mention never to be applied to a group of black guys beating the shit out of my head with a pistol in the winter of 1979 in a Pizza Hut Restaurant in Atlanta.

Beating me in the head was already a crime in 1979. Pointing a gun at me and my friends was already a crime in 1979. Picking out the only white boys in a restaurant full of black customers and staff didn’t change the number of stitches it took to close up the cuts on the back of my thick skull that evening.

Today in my considered opinion, the US Supreme Court passed a new Hate Crime Law—

IN REVERSE.

Put a religious symbol in a public place when you LOVE & BELIEVE in what the religion represents—THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW.

Place the exact same symbol in a different public place, for a different reason, and THAT’S JUST A-OK.

I think that today’s 5-4 decision is founded in the same ignorant, biased, stupid principals that hate crime laws are founded on. Today the US Supreme Court ruled that our citizens can’t display the Ten Commandments in or near a Public Courthouse if the person that put them there actually believed in (and possibly lived by) the Ten Commandments.

Hey…Your Honor Ms. Sandra Day O’Connor, let my slightly uneducated, Libertarian, Redneck Ass ask you something: “Kentucky can’t look at them (religious symbols), but Texas can have them (religious symbols)

I’m confused?

How about if I bring you and your fellow judges (and I use the term “Judge” fairly loosely) a big old fish aquarium full of my urine with a nice miniature copy of the Ten Commandments mounted prominently inside.

In your considered, highly educated, honorable opinion, would it be legal to display THAT in the lobby of the Supreme Court Building up there in Washington DC?

After all, a whole bunch of your high browed, high powered, intellectual, know it all, bleeding heart, liberal elitist friends and associates thought that Jesus on a Cross in a jar full of Piss could be considered serious ART in 1989.

Idiots