Divination, not deviation (ok, you may mean the latter, but I meant the former).
Sorry that's my fault, I misread your comment. I still stand by my assessment that it is within a judges duties when the facts suggest an intent.
would argue against that. Since clearly they were in a place where all were gay, their chosing one is just a crime. And probably not a hate crime since this was simply a premeditated one.
Hate is involved with many crimes, but then one can also argue that without hate there would be no crime (in an instance not as a general statement), so convicting someone of a crime and then of hate is double jeopardy. And in some cases just flat out wrong.
I would still argue that a crime driven out of a hate for a given group of people is deserving of a harsher punishment. But I see what you're saying, I just don't think we will ever agree on it.
Freedom of religion indeed allows for the freedom of no religion. But that does not guarantee you the freedom from religion. If I pass you on the street and say "God Bless you" you are touched by religion. You are not free from it. YOu are free not to practice it, or participate in it, but no one can be free from it. Unless they are monastic, or live in a totalitarian state where it is forbidden.
I mean free from having religion forced on you in a situation that you can't get away from, like school led prayer. You have little choice in where you get your education (some parents can't afford private school) so to have religion forced on you there is violating your right to practice whatever religion you choose (or no religion at all).
Walking down the street is a different situation. It's not like you would be forcibly stopping me in the street to preach the word of jesus to me, I have the ability to walk away from you if I so choose.
Led by whom? If a student stands up and starts citing the OUr father, that is not forcing anyone to participate. If I stand up and start a wave for the home team, that is not forcing you to participate. Again, if the leader is just a spectator, then it can hardly be called led prayer.
But it was my understanding in the student led prayer case that it was read aloud over the PA and everyone in the crowd was expected to join in. Just because it was a student who was leading the prayer doesn't mean that it was just a spectator in the crowd. If you want to sit in a crowd and pray with your family that's one thing, but to have it be led over the PA is a different situation. And like I said I think prayer is very different from led cheers or the wave based on how people react around you as a result.
And again legislating from the bench. Allowing it because you think it is fine, is one thing. Ruling it unconstitutional is another. SO far, no one has. And that was just one. Narcotics, dope, seatbelts (which are gaining, not losing), helmets are all examples of a deprivation of privacy that the courts are blindly accepting - because it fits their agenda, not because they are thinking in the vein of ROe V Wade.
I can see your point here.