Another perversion of justice passed.

McClatchy: Obama signs first major federal gay-rights law

Why do I say perversion of justice? Because this is (1) the latest in PC legislation aimed at policing thought (and intention), going beyond what human beings are really competent to judge, and (2) the injury (such as murder) of someone of a protected status is no different than the injury (or murder) of someone of an unprotected status -- both are, in the abstract, equally against justice. It may even be that instances of the latter is more grave, depending upon the affinity of the victim to ourselves. As for whether both crimes are equally against charity or friendship, or so on -- in the abstract, hatred does not seem to admit of distinctions with regards to the object, even if the reasons for hatred differ. Those reasons do not seem to me to change or differentiate the hatred.

(In so far as the punishment exceeds the crime, it is a violation of commutative justice. If there is also unequal protection of the law, if equals are being protected by the law or punished unequally, then there is a violation of distributive justice.)

Edit. With respect to external acts one is supposed to attain legal certainty of the defendant's guilt through the evidence and testimony. But how is the manifestation of a specific intention at the time a crime is committed supposed to be proven? Even if a "hate crime" is premeditated, and evidence can be found (a diary, for example), can one really show, according to the standards of legal certainty, that hate was the actual root of the crime when it was committed? It may seem to be logical -- after all, if the defendant didn't hate the victim, why would he injure him, but is there enough warrant for such an inference? If there is no such evidence, just the defendant's past actions, speech, and personal associations, could hate be proved?