@Ruthiness - a crime involving an assault wouldn't be classified as a "hate crime" if it is retaliatory or for the gain of the assailant. Example: shooting the guy you catch sleeping with your wife — not a hate crime; attacking someone to facilitate a robbery - not a hate crime.

A short person attacked for being short by someone who hates short people would be the victim of a hate crime, yes.

The distinction was originally when the motive for the attack can only be explained by an inane bias against a trait that is considered fundamental (race, creed, sex, handicap, etc), not in the emotion of "hatred" present or absent during the attack. There is no way to take caution not to be the race you were born as; the risk is the victim's own body. **Recently it's been perverted to try to include things like marital status or military affiliation or social/political group membership.** It doesn't offer protection for one group more than another though. A straight white male being attacked for being just that is still a "hate crime".

With all this said, it's my opinion that all violent attacks should be equally serious crimes. There is no such thing as a "more valid reason" for members of a species claiming to be "civilized" to escalate emotions to a violent attack, and this law implies that some kinds of violence are more reasonable and acceptable than others.