They’re discussing an amendment to express opposition to hate-crimes laws. I’m moving “left” on the question, or at least moving against the standard equal-protection argument against it that the delegate made (and made rather well). (Here’s what I used to think about the question.) I take the theory behind hate-crimes laws to be that these crimes have a larger social impact than other crimes and that the law can take account of that. We treat cop-killers worse than other killers, I take it, because we owe cops something for risking their lives for us and a community is dramatically less safe if it’s open season on cops. The unequal treatment of these crimes is not a denial of a basic equality in the right to life of cops and everyone else. Now it may be that hate-crimes laws are a prelude to a campaign to criminalize “hate speech” of various kinds, or some similar campaign, and that may be a reason to oppose hate-crimes laws. But in theory I can see a case for it, and yes, that includes for crimes against people based on their sexual orientation.

While I composed this post, btw, the amendment failed.