Hate

Writing in AMERICAblog, John in DC links to a story out of Arizona about a gay-bashing incident, and then makes this dubious argument:

Federal hates crimes law already covers race, religion and national origin. It does not cover gender, disability or sexual orientation. It should cover everyone. Whether or not you agree about the need for, or wisdom of, hate crimes law, if we're going to have a law on the books - and we already do (and ironically, the existing federal hate crimes law already covers Christian conservatives, the very people who most object to adding anyone else to it) - then the law ought to cover everyone.

I yield to no one in my condemnation of homophobia, but this is simply sloppy thinking.  First, what does John mean by "It should cover everyone"?  I don't agree that every time someone is assaulted because he or she belongs to a group or class that is hated it should be a federal offense.
I am one of those who disagrees about "the need for, or wisdom of, hate crimes law," particularly the federal law that John refers to.  Such laws are redundant.  We already have laws on the books against making threats, assault, mayhem and murder.  These crimes don't become any worse when they're prompted by prejudice.  They're not properly federal matters, either.  Such statutes seem to me to be part of my fellow liberals' unfortunate tendency to want to criminalize bad speech  and bad thoughts.