Omaha Forums

^ So what you're saying is that the problem with your friend's boss is not that the guy is homophobic.  It's that he's a screwed up idiot.  The guy obviously has a problem in his own bedroom/marriage, or he wouldn't be hitting on other women, and trying so hard to prove how "un-gay" he is.  He probably tells filthy black jokes too.

Sounds like a real piece of work.  But the fact that the jerk lives/works in Omaha does not mean that's an Omaha thing.

nativeomahan wrote: If the anti-discrimination ordinance was passed this manager would be shown the door and the quality of the work environment would improve 100%.  And my friend could get off his anti-anxiety meds.

And yet, by your own admission, he has already violated laws in relation to women and has NOT been shown the door.  Thus, NOTHING would change in this anecdotal example.

^ Kinda shows that there are creepy pukes everywhere.  All of us have had to deal with them, and none of us are excusing their behavior.

DeWalt wrote:^ Kinda shows that there are creepy pukes everywhere.  All of us have had to deal with them, and none of us are excusing their behavior.

On this forum, "Creep Pukes" = White males who believe in Jesus...

It's almost not even worth debating.

^ This is interesting to me.  We're seeing that this puke of a supervisor has already clearly violated several laws/ordinances/statutes, yet has suffered no consequences (probation, yeah...).    I don't know why, but somehow he has been able to fly under the radar.

So...  What does passing another ordinance do, but allow him (and people like him) to ignore that one too - and to do so without repercussions?

DeWalt wrote:^ This is interesting to me.  We're seeing that this puke of a supervisor has already clearly violated several laws/ordinances/statutes, yet has suffered no consequences (probation, yeah...).    I don't know why, but somehow he has been able to fly under the radar.

So...  What does passing another ordinance do, but allow him (and people like him) to ignore that one too - and to do so without repercussions?

Exactly my point.

DeWalt wrote:^ This is interesting to me.  We're seeing that this puke of a supervisor has already clearly violated several laws/ordinances/statutes, yet has suffered no consequences (probation, yeah...).    I don't know why, but somehow he has been able to fly under the radar.

So...  What does passing another ordinance do, but allow him (and people like him) to ignore that one too - and to do so without repercussions?

We really don't have enough information to understand why the manager hasn't been fired yet.  Cases of harassment have to start with a claim.  He can violate laws all day long, but someone has to turn him in to HR.  For all we know, the female victim is the first person to step forward and make a complaint, and the company acted quickly to give the manager a time out.  The worst thing an HR department can do is act inconsistently with company policy - leaves them wide open to lawsuits.  His other victims of his harassment are not even considered victims under the law - and have zero job protection to come forward.  The entire office culture is enabling the manager to act the way he has.

^ The real problem with this particular anecdote, is that we don't even know if any or all of it is true.  Therefore, it's all up for speculation.

TechnicalDisaster wrote:

DeWalt wrote:^ This is interesting to me.  We're seeing that this puke of a supervisor has already clearly violated several laws/ordinances/statutes, yet has suffered no consequences (probation, yeah...).    I don't know why, but somehow he has been able to fly under the radar.

So...  What does passing another ordinance do, but allow him (and people like him) to ignore that one too - and to do so without repercussions?

We really don't have enough information to understand why the manager hasn't been fired yet.  Cases of harassment have to start with a claim.  He can violate laws all day long, but someone has to turn him in to HR.  For all we know, the female victim is the first person to step forward and make a complaint, and the company acted quickly to give the manager a time out.  The worst thing an HR department can do is act inconsistently with company policy - leaves them wide open to lawsuits.  His other victims of his harassment are not even considered victims under the law - and have zero job protection to come forward.  The entire office culture is enabling the manager to act the way he has.

The whole problem with your argument is that Nebraska is a right to work state.  The person can go to HR and, regardless of if any anti-discrimination laws are violated, they can fire him so long as THEY are not violating any anti-discrimination laws.

You know, after reading through this thread, all I've got to say is that I love not fitting stereotypes.

But as for DeWalt's comments a few pages back, as in the "In an interview, how am I supposed to know if the interviewee is gay?"

Ok, say some guy is gay and gets a job. After a few months, it is revealed in a conversation that he is gay, and he is fired for it. Can he do anything? Nope. Thats because it isn't a protected class. Or what if a hate crime is committed against a gay person because he is gay. Can it be charged as a hate crime? Nope.

Axel wrote:You know, after reading through this thread, all I've got to say is that I love not fitting stereotypes.

But as for DeWalt's comments a few pages back, as in the "In an interview, how am I supposed to know if the interviewee is gay?"

Ok, say some guy is gay and gets a job. After a few months, it is revealed in a conversation that he is gay, and he is fired for it. Can he do anything? Nope. Thats because it isn't a protected class. Or what if a hate crime is committed against a gay person because he is gay. Can it be charged as a hate crime? Nope.

Why does it need to be tried as a hate crime?  A crime is a crime.

If I assaulted a person because he's gay, I should be tried for assault and, if found guilty, given the maximum sentence possible.  If I killed a person because he's gay, I should be tried and convicted for 1st Degree Murder, and given the maximum sentence possible.  

Murder is wrong because it is wrongfully taking the life of a human being - not because it's a straight or gay human being, male or female.  But because the person is a human being.  THAT is equality, and isn't that what we all want?

DeWalt wrote:So what you're wanting is special punishment, based on who the victim is?  That doesn't sound like justice at all.

I think this is one of the most misunderstood facets of hate crimes. The punishment should fit the crime, and yes, crimes based on hatred should be taken as seriously as crimes based on greed, lust, anger, addiction, etc., which often times they are not.

Omababe wrote:

DeWalt wrote:So what you're wanting is special punishment, based on who the victim is?  That doesn't sound like justice at all.

I think this is one of the most misunderstood facets of hate crimes. The punishment should fit the crime, and yes, crimes based on hatred should be taken as seriously as crimes based on greed, lust, anger, addiction, etc., which often times they are not.

Besides these, a hate crime is a hate crime because it doesn't only affect, go after the murdered. When a black man is strung up by a noose and dragged behind a car in Texas it sends a message to other black people, when Mathew Sheppard is strung up on a fence and left for dead, it sends a message to other gay people. Like Rape, part of a hate crime's cruelty is the power and intimidation of the victim and others in their "group"

justnick wrote:Besides these, a hate crime is a hate crime because it doesn't only affect, go after the murdered. When a black man is strung up by a noose and dragged behind a car in Texas it sends a message to other black people, when Mathew Sheppard is strung up on a fence and left for dead, it sends a message to other gay people. Like Rape, part of a hate crime's cruelty is the power and intimidation of the victim and others in their "group"

Using that logic, there are already laws on the book for that - terroristic threats.

So...  What's pretty obvious here is that some people want unique (and more severe) punishments for certain crimes, simply because of who the victim is.


Should a rapist receive a longer prison sentence if he rapes a pretty black girl, than if he rapes a fat middle-aged white woman?
If I were to stalk and kill a 40-year old gay man, should I receive a longer sentence than if I were to stalk and kill a 40-year old straight man?


Ridiculous.

Omababe wrote:

DeWalt wrote:So what you're wanting is special punishment, based on who the victim is?  That doesn't sound like justice at all.

I think this is one of the most misunderstood facets of hate crimes. The punishment should fit the crime, and yes, crimes based on hatred should be taken as seriously as crimes based on greed, lust, anger, addiction, etc., which often times they are not.

You're saying two different things.  You want the punishment to fit the crime.  But not really.  The punishment should be worse or less, based on who the victim is.

DeWalt wrote:So...  What's pretty obvious here is that some people want unique (and more severe) punishments for certain crimes, simply because of who the victim is.


Should a rapist receive a longer prison sentence if he rapes a pretty black girl, than if he rapes a fat middle-aged white woman?
If I were to stalk and kill a 40-year old gay man, should I receive a longer sentence than if I were to stalk and kill a 40-year old straight man?


Ridiculous.

Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING LONGER PRISON SENTENCES, ONLY THAT THOSE CONVICTED OF HATE CRIMES RECEIVE SOME SORT OF HELP WITH TOLERANCE FOR THE GROUP THEY ATTACKED IF THERE WAS PROOF OF A HATE CRIME!

Axel wrote:

DeWalt wrote:So...  What's pretty obvious here is that some people want unique (and more severe) punishments for certain crimes, simply because of who the victim is.


Should a rapist receive a longer prison sentence if he rapes a pretty black girl, than if he rapes a fat middle-aged white woman?
If I were to stalk and kill a 40-year old gay man, should I receive a longer sentence than if I were to stalk and kill a 40-year old straight man?


Ridiculous.

Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING LONGER PRISON SENTENCES, ONLY THAT THOSE CONVICTED OF HATE CRIMES RECEIVE SOME SORT OF HELP WITH TOLERANCE FOR THE GROUP THEY ATTACKED IF THERE WAS PROOF OF A HATE CRIME!

Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING DIFFERENT SENTENCES, BASED ON WHO THE VICTIM IS, NOT ON WHAT THE CRIME IS.  THAT IS NOT JUSTICE!

^ Again, you want different sentencing based not on the crime, but the victim.


Why is it that we keep demanding equality, but not accepting equality?  Assault is assault, whether the victim is an old man, a 20-year old girl, a Muslim or a lesbian.

DeWalt wrote:^ Again, you want different sentencing based not on the crime, but the victim.


Why is it that we keep demanding equality, but not accepting equality?  Assault is assault, whether the victim is an old man, a 20-year old girl, a Muslim or a lesbian.

How would the sentence be different?

DeWalt wrote:^ The real problem with this particular anecdote, is that we don't even know if any or all of it is true.  Therefore, it's all up for speculation.

It is very true.  It involves a west Omaha electrical company purchased recently by a similar company out of Iowa.  The HR office is in Iowa, from my understanding.  Complaints were made by the woman and the manger was put on probation.  I don't know what the terms are because I don't work for the company, and they weren't disclosed to anyone else other than the probationer.

My friend did not complain about the christian comment because he is christian.  The manager is always rattling on about people need to tithe 10% of their income to their church.  He sounds like a real Archie Bunker type, although I think I was told he is only in his mid or late 40s.

DeWalt wrote:Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING DIFFERENT SENTENCES, BASED ON WHO THE VICTIM IS, NOT ON WHAT THE CRIME IS.  THAT IS NOT JUSTICE!

Scenario 1:  Bar fight.  Man breaks other man's nose with pool cue in drunken fight over girl.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 2:  Man attacked without provocation with broken beer bottle while walking to his car from a gay bar by group of gay bashers.  His nose is broken.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 3:  Thug attacks 10 year old special needs child walking home from school.  Strikes girl with brick, breaking her nose.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

DeWalt sez it would be wrong to sentence these criminals differently, because, after all, it is the same crime.

Good luck selling that snake oil.

It's far too easy for a non-minority person to not understand minority issues, including why a hate crime is different. And I'm glad. Because every time I read about another gay kid murdered (Lawrence King), or a transgendered woman (Brandon Tina, Gwen Arujo, the list goes on forever.), etc, because of who they are, I get scared shitless.

I'm glad you don't have to deal with that, and can completely discount it, 'cause I can't.

nativeomahan wrote:

DeWalt wrote:Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING DIFFERENT SENTENCES, BASED ON WHO THE VICTIM IS, NOT ON WHAT THE CRIME IS.  THAT IS NOT JUSTICE!

Scenario 1:  Bar fight.  Man breaks other man's nose with pool cue in drunken fight over girl.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 2:  Man attacked without provocation with broken beer bottle while walking to his car from a gay bar by group of gay bashers.  His nose is broken.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 3:  Thug attacks 10 year old special needs child walking home from school.  Strikes girl with brick, breaking her nose.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

DeWalt sez it would be wrong to sentence these criminals differently, because, after all, it is the same crime.

Good luck selling that snake oil.

So you're throwing out 3 entirely different scenarios, and trying to make the comparison.

Good luck selling that snake oil!


A bar fight is the same as a thug throwing a brick at a 10-year old kid?  You should know better than that.

justnick wrote:It's far too easy for a non-minority person to not understand minority issues, including why a hate crime is different. And I'm glad. Because every time I read about another gay kid murdered (Lawrence King), or a transgendered woman (Brandon Tina, Gwen Arujo, the list goes on forever.), etc, because of who they are, I get scared |expletive|.

I'm glad you don't have to deal with that, and can completely discount it, 'cause I can't.

Everybody is a non-minority person, if you work hard enough to put yourself in some such group.  Shoot, living in North Omaha, I'm a minority person.  I should probably be seeking some sort of protected status, right?

So that people like DeWalt are not left feeling unwanted, let's just remove all protected classes.  Why charge a hate crime of any type any different? Let's just end all of them, that way nobody feels unwanted.

nativeomahan wrote:

DeWalt wrote:Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING DIFFERENT SENTENCES, BASED ON WHO THE VICTIM IS, NOT ON WHAT THE CRIME IS.  THAT IS NOT JUSTICE!

Scenario 1:  Bar fight.  Man breaks other man's nose with pool cue in drunken fight over girl.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 2:  Man attacked without provocation with broken beer bottle while walking to his car from a gay bar by group of gay bashers.  His nose is broken.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 3:  Thug attacks 10 year old special needs child walking home from school.  Strikes girl with brick, breaking her nose.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

DeWalt sez it would be wrong to sentence these criminals differently, because, after all, it is the same crime.

Good luck selling that snake oil.

Those are the same crimes - class 3 felonies. You said it yourself. Perhaps the motives were a bit different, but the outcomes of their actions were all the same.

Erik wrote:So that people like DeWalt are not left feeling unwanted, let's just remove all protected classes.  Why charge a hate crime of any type any different? Let's just end all of them, that way nobody feels unwanted.

Why not?  How about trying something really radical - let's just treat everyone equally!  I know, I know, it's a bizarre concept, but it seems to me like it ought to work!  We're all human beings, right?  We're all supposed to be equal, right?  

A person who murders a black man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a white man, right?  A person who murders a gay man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a straight man, right?


Equality - what a concept!!!

DeWalt wrote:

Erik wrote:So that people like DeWalt are not left feeling unwanted, let's just remove all protected classes.  Why charge a hate crime of any type any different? Let's just end all of them, that way nobody feels unwanted.

Why not?  How about trying something really radical - let's just treat everyone equally!  I know, I know, it's a bizarre concept, but it seems to me like it ought to work!  We're all human beings, right?  We're all supposed to be equal, right?  

A person who murders a black man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a white man, right?  A person who murders a gay man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a straight man, right?


Equality - what a concept!!!

But what about things that aren't murders? What if, like I said, someone assaults a man of some race, and the whole entire time he is calling that man names and insulting him for his race. Neither man knows the other. Should that man seriously just be thrown in jail without doing anything to correct his obvious racial issues?

DeWalt wrote:

Erik wrote:So that people like DeWalt are not left feeling unwanted, let's just remove all protected classes.  Why charge a hate crime of any type any different? Let's just end all of them, that way nobody feels unwanted.

Why not?  How about trying something really radical - let's just treat everyone equally!  I know, I know, it's a bizarre concept, but it seems to me like it ought to work!  We're all human beings, right?  We're all supposed to be equal, right?  

A person who murders a black man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a white man, right?  A person who murders a gay man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a straight man, right?


Equality - what a concept!!!

You are truly an ignorant man if you think these groups are not targeted due to 'who' they are.  The fact that you are allowing your own personal feelings blind you from the |expletive| these people deal with everyday, makes me hope that one day you suffer the pains they do. Karma is a b@#$t.

Erik, I think you are missing his point, which is a very simple one, at that. Equal punishment for equal crimes. Just because you are a gay victim as opposed to a non-gay victim should not give you additional leverage in the court system.

In the court of law, you should be a victim. Not a gay victim, a red haired victim, or a black victim - you are only a victim.


You want to be treated as an equal, right? Well, that is equal.

Erik wrote:

DeWalt wrote:

Erik wrote:So that people like DeWalt are not left feeling unwanted, let's just remove all protected classes.  Why charge a hate crime of any type any different? Let's just end all of them, that way nobody feels unwanted.

Why not?  How about trying something really radical - let's just treat everyone equally!  I know, I know, it's a bizarre concept, but it seems to me like it ought to work!  We're all human beings, right?  We're all supposed to be equal, right?  

A person who murders a black man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a white man, right?  A person who murders a gay man should receive the same sentence as a person who murders a straight man, right?


Equality - what a concept!!!

You are truly an ignorant man if you think these groups are not targeted due to 'who' they are.  The fact that you are allowing your own personal feelings blind you from the |expletive| these people deal with everyday, makes me hope that one day you suffer the pains they do. Karma is a b@#$t.

I'm not at all ignorant, nor am I uneducated or naive.  And I'm not letting my personal feelings blind me.  You are the one doing that.

I also find it interesting that you wish ill on me.  That's speaks to the smallness of your character.  You should be ashamed of yourself.


We don't need to create new laws.  We need to enforce the ones that are already on the books!  We don't need to make a new law saying it's illegal to assault and/or kill a black or gay man.  It's already illegal!  

Prosecute criminals based on the crimes they have committed!  Why is it so hard to grasp that concept?

Axel wrote:But what about things that aren't murders? What if, like I said, someone assaults a man of some race, and the whole entire time he is calling that man names and insulting him for his race. Neither man knows the other. Should that man seriously just be thrown in jail without doing anything to correct his obvious racial issues?

Punish the crime.  Period.  

ALL assault is, on the basest level, a hate crime.  How can you not see that?

S33 wrote:

nativeomahan wrote:

DeWalt wrote:Allow me to repeat this for the third time.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING DIFFERENT SENTENCES, BASED ON WHO THE VICTIM IS, NOT ON WHAT THE CRIME IS.  THAT IS NOT JUSTICE!

Scenario 1:  Bar fight.  Man breaks other man's nose with pool cue in drunken fight over girl.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 2:  Man attacked without provocation with broken beer bottle while walking to his car from a gay bar by group of gay bashers.  His nose is broken.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 3:  Thug attacks 10 year old special needs child walking home from school.  Strikes girl with brick, breaking her nose.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

DeWalt sez it would be wrong to sentence these criminals differently, because, after all, it is the same crime.

Good luck selling that snake oil.

Those are the same crimes - class 3 felonies. You said it yourself. Perhaps the motives were a bit different, but the outcomes of their actions were all the same.

Correct.  But no one with half a right mind would expect the same sentence to be handed down in each of these cases.

DeWalt wrote:Everybody is a non-minority person

How does that work?  Maybe to Helen Keller they are.

nativeomahan wrote: Scenario 1:  Bar fight.  Man breaks other man's nose with pool cue in drunken fight over girl.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 2:  Man attacked without provocation with broken beer bottle while walking to his car from a gay bar by group of gay bashers.  His nose is broken.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

Scenario 3:  Thug attacks 10 year old special needs child walking home from school.  Strikes girl with brick, breaking her nose.  Crime, second degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  Class 3 felony.  1 to 20 years incarceration under Nebraska law.

DeWalt sez it would be wrong to sentence these criminals differently, because, after all, it is the same crime.

Good luck selling that snake oil.

Those are the same crimes - class 3 felonies. You said it yourself. Perhaps the motives were a bit different, but the outcomes of their actions were all the same.

nativeomahan wrote: Correct.  But no one with half a right mind would expect the same sentence to be handed down in each of these cases.

Whatever. Agree to disagree

Omababe wrote:

DeWalt wrote:So what you're wanting is special punishment, based on who the victim is?  That doesn't sound like justice at all.

I think this is one of the most misunderstood facets of hate crimes. The punishment should fit the crime, and yes, crimes based on hatred should be taken as seriously as crimes based on greed, lust, anger, addiction, etc., which often times they are not.

Forgive me for being obtuse, but what crime is NOT a hate crime? Greed and lust - aren't those motivated by hate? Would anger, addiction, or fear be an acceptable excuse for criminal behavior? Isn't there an element of hate - when anger leads to crime, addiction leads to debasement, fear that doesn't ask for help?

You don't have to be a minority to understand the fear of being a victim of violent crime. Maybe with a 'can't happen to me' attitude there isn't fear, but do most people think they are violent crime exempt? Even the really tough guys?

justnick wrote:It's far too easy for a non-minority person to not understand minority issues, including why a hate crime is different. And I'm glad. Because every time I read about another gay kid murdered (Lawrence King), or a transgendered woman (Brandon Tina, Gwen Arujo, the list goes on forever.), etc, because of who they are, I get scared |expletive|.

I'm glad you don't have to deal with that, and can completely discount it, 'cause I can't.

I'm not sure I agree with you on 'hate crime is different' but I am not going to discount your feelings. I just haven't figured out what crime would NOT be a hate crime. I hope you can find a way to lead a life without fear.

I think you guys are admirable that you stand up to your belief system at all costs.  I find it kinda silly, however that you are willing to stand with your finger in our face and telling us our pain is only a matter of whining.

I find that to be extremely reckless and will continue praying to your god; that you will experience all that we experience on 'average', no more and no less.

Erik wrote:I think you guys are admirable that you stand up to your belief system at all costs.  I find it kinda silly, however that you are willing to stand with your finger in our face and telling us our pain is only a matter of whining.

I find that to be extremely reckless and will continue praying to your god; that you will experience all that we experience on 'average', no more and no less.

Thanks, Erik. Pleasure doing business with ya...