To note: depending on the “hate crime” legislation and what it defines as victim categories, some of the examples above could also be categorized as “hate crimes.” Wedgwood quotes an example: "Alabama law defines a hate crime as 'a Class A felony that was motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.'" Even then, if we include the beating of the homeless and the old man in hate crimes categories, why are they any worse than the beating of the guy who didn't want to join a gang? On what moral ground does one assert that half of the above examples are worse than the remaining half?
How can one assert that the guy who was beaten because he didn't want to join a gang or the other victim who been battered because he had studied hard suffered less or were assaulted less than the guy who was beaten because of his homosexual dysfunction? There is absolutely no moral grounds for the claim. This is one aspect that makes so-called “hate crime” categories highly immoral from a philosophical pespective.