I hate any protected class or hate crime laws. I believe quite firmly that the penalty for a crime should not be based on anything except the deed itself (presumably, if we are talking about penalty, guilt has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Not the victim, the perpetrator, or the motive. The deed is what matters. Otherwise, what you are saying in the law is that it is worse to attack (for example) some people than others. All in all, "hate crime" legislation sounds a lot like Animal Farm: we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
I agree there's no need for "hate crime" laws, they largely cover acts that are already illegal.
However there is a role to be played in sentencing, at a state level, and from a practical perspective that's what these laws are about. The politicos call them "hate crime laws" rather than sentencing laws because that culls votes.
Presume in Red State perp A goes out drinking, gets in a argument over his favorite sports team, and after many drinks assaults a Blue State team supporter and breaks his nose.
A Blue State resident hates gays, sees someone swishing down the street, crosses, assaults him and breaks his nose.
Presume the penalty for assault is probation to ten years.
I'd suggest that Blue States motivation both suggests a greater risk of recidivist, and likely merits a more severe sentence as he may present a greater risk to society.
That's the concept. It's not about separating victim groups, rather addressing the motivation of the criminal.
“I believe quite firmly that the penalty for a crime should not be based on anything except the deed itself...”
You make a good point here. However, if they are going to pass a bill making it a crime to assault a group of people because of who they are, their choice of specific groups leaves a lot to be desired.