I don’t think the replies in this thread address the issue correctly.
While assault, battery, murder, whatever, should be treated equally in all circumstances, hates crimes are a different breed.
As I understand it, a hate crime is terrorism against a particular group - an act designed to intimidate and cause fear against a whole class of people. While the hate crimes laws may not be applied perfectly, it’s understandable why attempts are being made to curtail these actions.
The arguments made by other posters are simply that they give groups special “rights”. I don’t buy that. In order to show an action was terrorism against a group, the criminal act must be shown to reinforce a reasonable, preexisting perception of ferocity - like a “I could be next” - in the entire victim class.
For example, a serial murderer who goes after skinny people only because he *hates* skinny people would not typically be considered a hate crime because, in general, skinny people do not feel persecuted or threatened.
On the other hand, a member of the gay community - which already has a higher rate of being murder victims and is continually condemned for who they are by entire religions, governments, and neighborhoods - who is murdered for being what they are is a different crime. It can reignite fear in an entire group of people and could easily be considered terrorism.
*flame suit on*
How a skinny, or gay, or fat, or white a non-victim of a particular crime "feels" about it is, or should be, entirely irrelevant, IMO. This goes beyond my previous post about the dangers of prosecuting people for their own thoughts or emotions, and travels into the uncharted and perilous region of prosecuting people for other peoples' thoughts or emotions.
That's a very bad place.