Highest Court in Brazil Rules Homophobia a Crime

[Des-Bal]

The majority of people in this thread have not been confused, so I feel the OP is fine enough as is.

It's not. The title says homophobia is a crime, the articles talk about criminalizing homophobia, and the first fucking page of the thread is all people arguing about what the fuck that means.

[Nakena]

Ah yes the degenerate globohomo.

Believe it or not I read that term on NSG first.

I believe it, very easily. I've not heard it used much - if at all - outside of NSG.

I've actually had to google it back then and a number of neonazi news outlets came among the top ten results.

By now I've seen the term elsewhere too as it sems have spread and is being mentioned on reddit and has also gotten an entry into the Urban Dictionary

"A word used to describe a globalized and homogenized culture pushed for by large companies, politicians, and Neocon/Leftist pawns. This culture includes metropolitan ideals such as diversity, homosexuality, sexual degeneracy, colorblindness in regard to race, egalitarianism, money worship, and the erasure of different individual cultures, among other things. The term is often used by Alt-Right figures, as well as other people associated to the right on the political spectrum, who are aware of the globalization being forced upon multiple countries. Also used to describe Global Capitalism and/or Marxism. The globohomo system is referred to as the Globohomo Gayplex."

Source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... =Globohomo

[Dontriptia]

[

[Vassenor]

They're not creating a new law, they're saying that existing law covering racism will also be applied to homophobia in the same way.

Yes, and that was never passed by the people. They are functionally amending the law, racism and homophobia are not the same.

Are laws only valid if they're passed by referendum now?

Then again you seem to have problems with women being able to control their own bodies so yeah.

[Nova Cyberia]

Yes, and that was never passed by the people. They are functionally amending the law, racism and homophobia are not the same.

Are laws only valid if they're passed by referendum now?

Then again you seem to have problems with women being able to control their own bodies so yeah.

Oh, good, now Vass is gonna threadjack and make it about abortion.

As if the discussion wasn't garbage enough.

[Ifreann]

They're not creating a new law, they're saying that existing law covering racism will also be applied to homophobia in the same way.

Yes, and that was never passed by the people. They are functionally amending the law, racism and homophobia are not the same.

Firing someone for being gay and firing someone for being black aren't that different.

[Liriena]

They're not creating a new law, they're saying that existing law covering racism will also be applied to homophobia in the same way.

Yes, and that was never passed by the people. They are functionally amending the law, racism and homophobia are not the same.

I'd argue that, while they are not the same, they are equally stupid.

[Des-Bal]

I'd argue that, while they are not the same, they are equally stupid.

That's a good reason to pass a law that applies to homophobia, not for the judiciary to create one.

[Gormwood]

I'd argue that, while they are not the same, they are equally stupid.

That's a good reason to pass a law that applies to homophobia, not for the judiciary to create one.

Racism was declared a crime in Brazil in 1989 with prison sentences of up to five years. The court's judges ruled that homophobia should be framed within the racism law until the country's Congress approves legislation specifically dealing with LGBT discrimination.

[Des-Bal]

Racism was declared a crime in Brazil in 1989 with prison sentences of up to five years. The court's judges ruled that homophobia should be framed within the racism law until the country's Congress approves legislation specifically dealing with LGBT discrimination.

[Gormwood]

There is no homophobia law currently so the judges said to use the racism law as guideline until the congress makes one. Shocking, I know.

[Galloism]

There is no homophobia law currently so the judges said to use the racism law as guideline until the congress makes one. Shocking, I know.

That’s kind of backwards to us of course, but that’s probably because we have a different notion regarding separation of powers.

[Des-Bal]

There is no homophobia law currently so the judges said to use the racism law as guideline until the congress makes one. Shocking, I know.

The issue isn't that it's shocking it's that it's not the place of the judiciary to create such a law which you know, I fucking said. It doesn't matter if it's a stopgap, if you had that and five cents you could make a nickel.

[Gormwood]

There is no homophobia law currently so the judges said to use the racism law as guideline until the congress makes one. Shocking, I know.

That’s kind of backwards to us of course, but that’s probably because we have a different notion regarding separation of powers.

The issue isn't that it's shocking it's that it's not the place of the judiciary to create such a law which you know, I fucking said. It doesn't matter if it's a stopgap, if you had that and five cents you could make a nickel.

So there should be no stopgap and LGBT discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?

[Des-Bal]

So there should be no stopgap and LGBT discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?

Yep. Until a law is written there should be no law.

[Galloism]

So there should be no stopgap and LGBT discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?

In our system, that's how it works, yes. it's sort of a bedrock legal principle in our country.

Maybe Brazil's system is different. Perhaps judges there have legislative authority? I don't know.

Seems strange though, as I could rephrase your post as:

"So there should be no stopgap and religious discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?"

Or

"So there should be no stopgap and political discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?"

Or

"So there should be no stopgap and age discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?"

Or

"So there should be no stopgap and BMI discrimination in Brazil should continue to be legal until a law is passed?"

And they would all be just as valid.

[Blueflarst]

I will be sincere.
The Homosexual people should not be protected by an special law if everyone has the same rights a law which protects a minority more than the others is discrimination itself.
The same apply with the racism laws they should not exist cause some races will profit on it over others.
The right mode of protecting the minorities is enforcing higher sentences on assasination and other crimes.

Also the racism, homofobia etc will not dissapear never some people in the society advocates againist some others and they will not dissapear or cease their activity by passing discriminative laws againist them. This is the same case of the feminist laws, the more laws protecting the women you pass the more machism will flourish.
It is not like the racial minorities the homosexual people and others are not protected by the generic laws the only way to protect them is enforcing the generic lawcode

Inclusive laws and politics are only a show done by progressive politicians to fill organizations and associations againist discrimination with their fellow friends in pure nepotist way
In 1990 this minorities had the same protection they have now in developed states fact proving the lack of use of the positive discrimination in our society.

[Necroghastia]

I will be sincere.
The Homosexual people should not be protected by an special law if everyone has the same rights a law which protects a minority more than the others is discrimination itself.
The same apply with the racism laws they should not exist cause some races will profit on it over others.
The right mode of protecting the minorities is enforcing higher sentences on assasination and other crimes.

Also the racism, homofobia etc will not dissapear never some people in the society advocates againist some others and they will not dissapear or cease their activity by passing discriminative laws againist them. This is the same case of the feminist laws, the more laws protecting the women you pass the more machism will flourish.

TIL: Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.

I'm sure you also have sources to back up the rest of your assertions too.

[Vassenor]

I will be sincere.
The Homosexual people should not be protected by an special law if everyone has the same rights a law which protects a minority more than the others is discrimination itself.
The same apply with the racism laws they should not exist cause some races will profit on it over others.
The right mode of protecting the minorities is enforcing higher sentences on assasination and other crimes.

Also the racism, homofobia etc will not dissapear never some people in the society advocates againist some others and they will not dissapear or cease their activity by passing discriminative laws againist them. This is the same case of the feminist laws, the more laws protecting the women you pass the more machism will flourish.

There you have it. Saying you can't fire, assault or murder people for being LGBT is discrimination.

[Blueflarst]

I will be sincere.
The Homosexual people should not be protected by an special law if everyone has the same rights a law which protects a minority more than the others is discrimination itself.
The same apply with the racism laws they should not exist cause some races will profit on it over others.
The right mode of protecting the minorities is enforcing higher sentences on assasination and other crimes.

Also the racism, homofobia etc will not dissapear never some people in the society advocates againist some others and they will not dissapear or cease their activity by passing discriminative laws againist them. This is the same case of the feminist laws, the more laws protecting the women you pass the more machism will flourish.

TIL: Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.

I'm sure you also have sources to back up the rest of your assertions too.

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

[Blueflarst]

I will be sincere.
The Homosexual people should not be protected by an special law if everyone has the same rights a law which protects a minority more than the others is discrimination itself.
The same apply with the racism laws they should not exist cause some races will profit on it over others.
The right mode of protecting the minorities is enforcing higher sentences on assasination and other crimes.

Also the racism, homofobia etc will not dissapear never some people in the society advocates againist some others and they will not dissapear or cease their activity by passing discriminative laws againist them. This is the same case of the feminist laws, the more laws protecting the women you pass the more machism will flourish.

There you have it. Saying you can't fire, assault or murder people for being LGBT is discrimination.

I never said such thing. Saying it is one thing and doing a law with this motive is another different
All people in the same state must be judbged by the same laws and with the same condemn for the same actions the causes does not matter only the real crimes. If some people kills another i could not care less of the motive of the action [racism, homofobia, vengeance, religious motives, an illnessetc] i only care of punishing the crime the person has done

[Vassenor]

TIL: Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.

I'm sure you also have sources to back up the rest of your assertions too.

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

I am not sure I follow this logic.

[North German Realm]

TIL: Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.

I'm sure you also have sources to back up the rest of your assertions too.

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

Except the problem is, homophobes will continue to refuse to hire based on sexuality. Sexists will continue to refuse to hire based on sex. Racists will continue to refuse to hire based on race. You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse to hire anyone period", because that would be stupid, so you have to limit the "reasons" one can refuse to hire someone. "He's not competent enough" is fine. "He's gay and I don't like gays", however, is discrimination.
Similarly, see "refuse service". You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse service to anyone"... for the same reason. But if you don't put the limits, if you don't bring up anti-discrimination laws, people will get discriminated. The Law has a duty to protect people from that.

[Blueflarst]

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

I am not sure I follow this logic.

Then you do not do justice but partial judgements favouring some collectives over another. The msot important thing on justice is an even hand

[Blueflarst]

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

Except the problem is, homophobes will continue to refuse to hire based on sexuality. Sexists will continue to refuse to hire based on sex. Racists will continue to refuse to hire based on race. You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse to hire anyone period", because that would be stupid, so you have to limit the "reasons" one can refuse to hire someone. "He's not competent enough" is fine. "He's gay and I don't like gays", however, is discrimination.
Similarly, see "refuse service". You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse service to anyone"... for the same reason. But if you don't put the limits, if you don't bring up anti-discrimination laws, people will get discriminated. The Law has a duty to protect people from that.

laws will not change the facts neither an employers whom does not want to contract someone will not do instead of saying ''he is homosexual'' he will say'' i do not like their curriculum i will search better staff''
discrimination will continue for example if some restaurant of a greedy radical religious person does not want to serve homosexual they will stop them from entering aswell but instead of saying ''i stop you for your sexuallity'' they will say'' you will cause trouble in my restaurant i have heard bad things from you''.