I believe there is a big difference between the following:

(a) committing a violent crime that just so happens to intimidate a protected class
(b) committing a violent crime because you really hate a protected class
(c) committing a violent crime in order to set an example to a protected class

(b)(c) were given extra sentencing in 1994 at a federal level. However, because of the weakness of the language, effectively (a) also qualifies for extra sentencing.

There is new pending legislation that removes the restriction that it has to occur at a federal level. It also includes gays in the protected class definition.

They also attempt to say that evidence must show that your hatred is connected to the crime.

But the language is so weak that most likely (a)(b)(c) will still qualify for extra sentencing.

I believe that only (d) should carry extra sentencing, which is:

(d) committing a crime in order to set an example to 1 or more other people

This could be a mafia boss ordering a hit on a grocery store owner for not paying up in order to set an example to other transgressors in the community. This could be someone targetting a prominent women's right activist for rape in order to scare the women's rights community.

And I believe that it's not necessarily hard to legislate against just that. Our law already includes many provisions about motive and intent. And perhaps (I'm not a legal expert) it already carries extra sentencing for intended community intimidation factor. In which case, hate crimes laws are not necessary.