Ah. Well in that case, I don't necessarily see what's wrong with it in practice if it can be proven that a hate crime was committed against someone. A hate crime is like terrorism, it targets a person/group because a group they belong to; racial, sexual, religious, ect... The issue I would guess is what groups qualify and what don't, and how to prove intent for some cases?
Like recently, there was clamor about the son of a police chief beating an elderly Sikh man but people were arguing against charging the punk with a hate crime because they argued it was a robbery in the spur of the moment, not a targeted attack against him because he was Sikh. Some argued against it not being charges as a hate crime initially because the punk was black and were calling the NAACP hypocritical for coming out saying it wasn't a hate crime.
Or if we could argue that political groups qualify as a protected group, would it be a hate crime if a democrat assaulted a republican with say, a bike lock or vice versa and a conservative bulldozed their neighbor's house down for having a Bernie sticker on their car?
Within the Amish, I believe members can be tried for hate crimes if someone attacks another and cuts off their beard. And the Jewish kid who made fake threats to blow up synagogues while pretending to be a white supremacist is being charges with terrorism and hate crimes.
I'm not too well versed with hate crime laws so I'll leave it here since I was more aware about why AA is considered racist and banned in some states.