The Ohio man who mocked the girl with cerebral palsy was found guilty of aggravated menacing and disorderly conduct, but not a 'hate crime.'
In the case of the Amish . . . as a part of their religion, Amish men don't cut their beards after marriage. More than six years ago, Amish bishop Sam Mullet, Sr., had placed a shunning order on members of his community who left because they objected to his behavior. He was accused of forcing men to live in chicken coops, and coercing women to have sex with him to learn to be better wives, among other things.
A group of over 300 other Amish bishops overturned Mullet's shunning order.
Mullet, Sr. and a group of fifteen of his followers stalked some of the bishops who had been instrumental in overturning his shunning order, ambushing them and cutting off their beards and hair.
It was prosecuted as a hate crime on the grounds that the beard-cuttings were due to the religious significance of the beards in the Amish faith.
OK, I stand corrected.
“Hate crime” is so generic, and if it’s to be a crime then why care about whether Bishop Mullet was motivated by the wish to humiliate other Amish or because he feared cooties? The only thing that ought to matter, Scout, is that he did it on purpose. There’s a separate accusation of harassment to describe the meaning aspect of the crime, if there is one. No wonder bank robbers are viewing him as a relatively benign figure.