On the other hand, I’d be wary of the argument, energetically promoted by the Family Research Council and other opponents of the bill, that hate-crimes laws violate the equal-protection clause of the Constitution because they privilege some classes of victims. (Incidentally, the administration’s statement of policy on the bill steers clear of this claim.) Leaving aside other problems with expansive readings of this clause: Hate-crimes laws single out for consideration certain categories of motives, based on the distinctively negative social effects that crimes with these motives allegedly have. They don’t, formally, single out classes of victims. (Note, for example, that a thug who beats up a guy in the mistaken belief that he is gay can be punished under such laws.) Laws can do that without violating the equal-protection clause (or any worthwhile principle of equality), even if they tend to operate in favor of some groups of victims rather than others.
But these laws are still bad ideas, in my view, for the reasons NRO set forth.