A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is taking up the claim of three Michigan ministers that a federal hate crime law infringes on their First Amendment rights and should be declared unconstitutional.Yes, you read that right. Three ministers, three men of god, three representatives of Jesus here on earth are suing to stop a law that makes hate illegal. Now, they work for a guy who said "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" so we wondered if they were like, not paying attention at orientation or something, but it turns out they don't really want it to be legal to hate just any old heathen, only some heathens.
The ministers say they could be targeted for their sermons against gay behavior.OK, we're not theologians over here or anything, but this raises an interesting question: Is it possible to be against something, or someone without actually hating it, or them? For example, we really don't like broccoli, but we don't hate it. We can sit at the same dinner table where it's being served and be polite while ignoring it all together. However, if someone asks us what we think about broccoli we'll tell them it tastes like shredded polypropylene, but after voicing our opinion we go on with our day--as does, we suspect, our interlocutor--and broccoli itself is pretty much unaffected by our public discourse on the evils of florets and stems. Broccoli farmers, you're never going to get rich off of us, but if you feel the need to grow that stuff and plunk it down in the produce aisle, right between the cauliflower and the green peppers, you can pretty much be assured that we're going to push our little squeaky wheeled cart right by it without even a passing glance. Sorry to be so blunt.
That being said, We have a theory as to why these three men of god feel the need to be protected from any legal blow back once they unleash the holy beat down on the homos--it's the old testament. See, in the old testament god's a manly man. Dude's opening up cans o' whupass all over the middle east. Step out of line and you can expect a face full of locusts, or frogs for in-laws. Now that kind of god appeals to a certain segment of the population--the segment with hair on its chest, man. The segment that's got a pair!. That's the kind of god you'd like to have a beer with.
Then along comes this Jesus guy and he's all love this and forgive that and don't judge the other thing. Where's the fun in that? We mean, if you're going to have the omniscient, omnipresent, undisputed ruler of the universe now and forever amen in your posse, shouldn't you be able to strike a little fear in the unbelievers? Shouldn't we at least be able to get some angels with flaming swords up in here?
No. Apparently 2000 years ago there was a change in policy. Maybe Yahweh decided you get more flies with honey than vinegar, or maybe Jesus managed to swing some votes on the board, who knows? Bottom line is our three reverends have, as we say, lost administrative support from the home office, so now they turn to the judicial system because somebody needs to render a serious butt kicking to the faggots and if the lord won't let you do the rendering, maybe Caesar will.