A case of attempted robbery has revealed that hate-crimes laws are not really about "hate" — they're about enshrining homosexual behavior in law.
Anthony Fortunato said he lured 28-year-old Michael Sandy to a New York City beach to rob him. Fortunato and a group of men chased Sandy into a street, where he was struck and killed by a car.
Fortunato, who said he selected Sandy because he thought a gay man would be an easy target for robbery, was charged with murder as a hate crime.
But Forunato testified in court that he, too, is gay.
Prosecutors argue that Fortunato's sexual orientation is irrelevant under New York law, which can convict defendants of hate crimes even if they bear no actual hatred for their victim.
The law only requires that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person's ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation, The Associated Press reported.
The judge overseeing the case backed that interpretation of the law before trial.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the case proves hate-crimes laws are unnecessary.
"If you can be prosecuted for a hate crime without demonstrating any hate for the victim, and you even belong to the same protected class as the victim, then all of the publicly touted reasons advanced by liberals for the necessity of these types of laws are pure fabrications designed to cover up their political motivations," he said.
"This case demonstrates that hate-crimes laws are not designed to accomplish anything more than elevating the social and legal status of certain politically powerful minority groups. All violent crimes are hate crimes, and can be adequately prosecuted under existing criminal laws."
