All this for a flag?

[Vader]

Oh not that quote but this : https://www.foxnews.com/us/iowa-lgbtq-flag-fire-church-prison

15 years for burning a gay flag. This is why hate crime legislation is so stupid. It sets up a protected class. So if a gay person destroys someone american flag no charges. If a straight person destroys someones gay flag 15 YEARS in jail. Equality under the law is a myth. Now we're judging entire crimes based solely on motive.

 

[Djfan]

That's how liberalism works. It's stupidity from top to bottom.

 

[Troglodyte]

The fact that it was hanging from a church just might have had something to do with it...

 

[SCSteeler4life]

American flag- no big deal
Rainbow gay flag- sentenced to 15 years of butt-f***king

Messed up backwards world that only a liberal would understand. Now if he would have been Muslim , he would have been just misunderstood.

 

[Steeltime]

The fact that it was hanging from a church just might have had something to do with it...

Okay. Pretend it was worth less than $900. In California, stealing that amount won't even get you arrested.

Burning a flag as a protest? Pretty sure there is some sort of Constitutional protection for that.

30 days for public burning. The other issues are irrelevant or protected.

 

[Troglodyte]

Burning a flag as a protest? Pretty sure there is some sort of Constitutional protection for that.

30 days for public burning. The other issues are irrelevant or protected.

Constitutional protection for burning someone else’s flag on their property? STFU!

 

[Steeltime]

Constitutional protection for burning someone else’s flag on their property? STFU!

Absolutely. Public facilities like churches are subject to 1st amendment protection, since they actually open their space to the public.

The 30 days is for lighting the fire. He burned the flag outdoors, so it was not arson. Arson is the burning of a protected structure. The danger inherent in setting a fire in public is a misdemeanor, and hence the 30 days.

Only stupid liberals think burning one flag is protected, another is not. You apparently believe that.

Complete the syllogism.

 

[deljzc]

I read the article today at lunch at USA Today.

It does seem excessive. Again, I hate adjectives in front for acts that change punishment. I can understand premeditated vs. crime of passion vs. self defense, etc.

But "hate" is a stupid adjective to base punishment on. If I go on someone's property and burn their American Flag, I'm not getting 15 years in jail. Something is fishy with this whole story.

 

[Steeltime]

If I go on someone's property and burn their American Flag, I'm not getting 15 years in jail. Something is fishy with this whole story.

Agreed. Something is not being reported. Stunning to think that news sources are lazy and stupid, and simply parrot what somebody tells them. The current MSM literally does no work, at all, and simply repeats (D)im talking points, word-for-word, and relies on (D)im "sources" for leaks that they, once again, simply parrot.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I read that the longer sentence is because he is a repeat offender, but they don't say what he's done before.

 

[deljzc]

It's sad, because the whole point of the story is to rile up readers and incite emotion and hope for clicks.

There is no journalism in this story at all. Just another example, in a LONG line of examples, how far our news media has fallen.

 

[Troglodyte]

Absolutely. Public facilities like churches are subject to 1st amendment protection, since they actually open their space to the public.

The 30 days is for lighting the fire. He burned the flag outdoors, so it was not arson. Arson is the burning of a protected structure. The danger inherent in setting a fire in public is a misdemeanor, and hence the 30 days.

Only stupid liberals think burning one flag is protected, another is not. You apparently believe that.

Complete the syllogism.

What’s stupid is thinking this is about a flag.

Would you support someone’s right to steal a cross, take it to a black church and set it ablaze?

 

[Superman]

What’s stupid is thinking this is about a flag.

Would you support someone’s right to steal a cross, take it to a black church and set it ablaze?

 

[Steeltime]

What’s stupid is thinking this is about a flag.

Would you support someone’s right to steal a cross, take it to a black church and set it ablaze?

What is stupid is your inability to read.

Did I ******* say he should not be punished? I'll await your answer before blistering the rest of your stupidity.

Okay, no, I won't. Would I send a guy to jail for 15 years for burning a cross as a protest? Of course not. If he puts the cross in a jar of urine, it's "art." If he burns it as protest, that is protected speech.

What is NOT protected is the starting of a fire. Once again, for the second time, doing so outdoors is a misdemeanor, with something like 30 days probation, or 30 days served for a second offense, etc.

"Oh, but the speech is racist and terrible. I mean, burning something at a black church!!"

Unpopular speech is the only speech that needs protection, dimwit. And damn right the speech is protected.

 

[suncitysteel]

Lost in all this.... why in the name of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9-11 is a church with "Christ" in its name flying an LGTBQ flag? Must be one of those liberal-leaning churches that chooses popularity over scripture.

 

[Troglodyte]

What is stupid is your inability to read.

Did I ******* say he should not be punished? I'll await your answer before blistering the rest of your stupidity.

Okay, no, I won't. Would I send a guy to jail for 15 years for burning a cross as a protest? Of course not. If he puts the cross in a jar of urine, it's "art." If he burns it as protest, that is protected speech.

What is NOT protected is the starting of a fire. Once again, for the second time, doing so outdoors is a misdemeanor, with something like 30 days probation, or 30 days served for a second offense, etc.

"Oh, but the speech is racist and terrible. I mean, burning something at a black church!!"

Unpopular speech is the only speech that needs protection, dimwit. And damn right the speech is protected.

Wow. So in your opinion, burning a cross (btw, “something”?) at a black church is constitutionally protected and therefor should be treated as a misdemeanor?

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

**** people shooting cops get less.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Wow. So in your opinion, burning a cross (btw, “something”?) at a black church is constitutionally protected and therefor should be treated as a misdemeanor?

Once again you demonstrate that you're ******* stupid and can't read.
The ACT of burning a cross is protected free speech. However, WHERE you burn it is not. Burning a cross on the yard of a black church, or any church, would at minimum be trespassing and property damage if the Greenies didn't get you first for an open fire and carbon footprint. Want to burn a cross on your own yard, assuming open fires are allowed in your community, then have at it.

 

[Troglodyte]

Once again you demonstrate that you're ******* stupid and can't read.
The ACT of burning a cross is protected free speech. However, WHERE you burn it is not. Burning a cross on the yard of a black church, or any church, would at minimum be trespassing and property damage if the Greenies didn't get you first for an open fire and carbon footprint. Want to burn a cross on your own yard, assuming open fires are allowed in your community, then have at it.

Please do reconcile with Steeltime’s #7 post.

 

[Vader]

None of this should send people to prison. I don't care if you burn a cross anywhere. It shouldn't mean 15 years in prison. I'm sick of protected classes of people. Either lady justice is blind with a scale or she is peaking underneath it to see skin color, sexual orientation ETC... It goes against everything the U.S. stands for since the founding.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Please do reconcile with Steeltime’s #7 post.

Not a problem.

Absolutely. Public facilities like churches are subject to 1st amendment protection, since they actually open their space to the public.

Doesn't say their space IS open to the public, it says THEY open their space to the public. In other words, you need permission from the church.
And you're still ******* stupid and can't read.

Going back to the original post, it would seem that the flag burner got extra time in jail because of the REASON why he burned the flag. We've been inching toward having the Thought Police and I guess we're there. THAT I have a problem with.

 

[Troglodyte]

Doesn't say their space IS open to the public, it says THEY open their space to the public. In other words, you need permission from the church.

Oh! So you mean like when crosses (or rainbow flags, or whatever) are burned with permission? Really? What the **** are you trying to argue?

 

[Steelr4evr]

Lost in all this.... why in the name of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 Verses 9-11 is a church with "Christ" in its name flying an LGTBQ flag? Must be one of those liberal-leaning churches that chooses popularity over scripture.

The secret church of the Sodomites.

 

[Steeler]

Wow. This is un ******* believable. This should be prosecuted no differently than burning a cardboard box.
If it's A-OK to burn my countries flag, then it should be A-OK to burn a gay flag, KKK flag or whatever.
Prosecute setting the fire, not the reason!
Total ******* bullshit!!

Speaking of, so if a black guy burns a KKK flag on the lawn of KKK headquarters, does he get prison time for a hate crime? Or is he labeled a hero?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Oh! So you mean like when crosses (or rainbow flags, or whatever) are burned with permission? Really? What the **** are you trying to argue?

Again, the issue is not burning something, it's WHERE you do it is the problem but you're too willfully stupid to see that.
First Amendment means you can burn a flag or whatever but it doesn't mean you can do it anywhere you please, like on someone else's property.