As Freaky said, hate crimes only instill more hate. But, it is within that person's right to hate. Just because you do not agree with their hate, that does make it any less valid. All these hate crime laws do is objectify race/creed/orientation. In a hate free world, something as trivial as the aforementioned wouldn't even be considered in the sentencing of a crime.
@Scarf: I do not think that just because they objected to hearing about LGBT issues would make them more prone to committing a hate crime. Just because the hate/dislike the LGBT "lifestyle" DOES NOT mean that they wish to bring harm to a LGBT individual. Imagine a John Doe that hates gays, but he is a very peaceable person, and would NEVER EVER hurt another human being physically/emotionally/mentally. Now say we have a Jane Doe that hates gays, and is VERY aggressive. Say Jane Doe get's the brilliant idea to attack a gay man/woman. She get's arrested and charged for assault AND hate crime. But wait, John Doe hates gay people just as much Jane Doe does, shouldn't he be charged with a hate crime too? Essentially, they are just charging Jane Doe with an extra charge for the SAME thing that John Doe did. Now, of course Jane Doe was charged because she assaulted someone. But she should be charged for doing just that, assaulting someone. Not for having an opinion or belief that is "immoral" by legal standards
What I was trying to say is that I had the feeling that people who already have something against queer people are going to be more likely to attack specifically queer people (if they attack anyone at all, which the overwhelming majority won't) and that they'll be the people most in need of learning a bit of tolerance while also being the ones most likely to opt out if there is the option of doing so.
Let me give another example to add to your hypothetical comparison. Joe Doe is not an aggressive person, but he hates queer people and gets the idea to attack a queer person. He gets arrested and charged with a hate crime. He wouldn't have attacked anyone if he weren't so hateful so it's his hatred which is at fault.
Essentially, hate crimes laws are saying "It's not okay to hate someone, but we'll tolerate you as long as you don't express your hate in attacks on people." I think that's fair. Hatred that gets so bad that it makes you want to attack someone is way too antisocial for a civilized society. I think it's naive to think that feelings of extreme hatred are safe or acceptable.
So if someone decides they hate old white straight men and goes out and kills one they'll be charged with a hate crime? =D
Ideally, if they targeted these men specifically because they were white/men/etc. and for no other reason, then they would be. That they might not be in every instance is irrelevant to the idea of having hate crimes laws and more an issue of making sure the laws are applied fairly, which is a valid point to make if we're discussing the practical realities of these laws, but I was under the impression we were still talking about the merits of these laws on their face.