- Washington State Senate passes HB 1052, expanding hate crime definitions but rejecting protections for political affiliation and economic choice.
- GOP lawmakers argue the bill selectively shields favored groups while leaving conservative voices vulnerable to violence and censorship.
- Amendment to include Tesla owners as a protected class—rejected by Democrats—highlights hypocrisy in who gets legal protections.
- Critics warn the bill edges closer to criminalizing dissenting speech under vague "hate crime" standards.
Democrats ignore actual hate crimes against Tesla owners
In a move that has stoked debate over free speech and political bias, the Washington State Senate passed a bill expanding hate crime laws while pointedly rejecting amendments that would safeguard individuals targeted for their political views or consumer choices. The legislation, HB 1052, sailed through in a party-line 30-19 vote, reflecting growing tensions over whether such laws are being weaponized to silence opposing ideologies rather than protect true victims of violence.
Sponsored by Democratic Representative Cindy Ryu, the bill broadens the definition of hate crimes to include offenses motivated by perceived identity markers—race, religion, gender identity, and more. But when Republican Senator Phil Fortunato proposed extending those protections to include political affiliation and economic choice (dubbed the “Tesla amendment”), Democrats swiftly shot it down. The refusal raises a glaring question: Why do some victims of intimidation merit legal shields while Conservatives are left exposed to left-wing violence and vandalism?
The "Tesla amendment" exposes selective protection
Fortunato’s argument was simple: If a person is assaulted, firebombed, or harassed solely for driving an electric vehicle—a growing trend linked to anti-capitalist and environmental extremism—shouldn’t that qualify as a hate crime? "A person makes an economic choice to buy a particular product, and because of that, they are targeted. It's exactly what a hate crime is," he asserted.
Yet Democratic Senator Manka Dhingra dismissed the idea, declaring, "Making economic choices or owning a Tesla is not a protected class." Her remarks underscore a recurring theme in progressive legislation: Protection applies only to state-approved identities, not to those outside the ideological fold. Fortunato fired back: "It is a protected class if we say it's a protected class. That’s the way it is. We simply write it into law."
The refusal to include economic choice as a protected class mirrors a broader pattern where politically inconvenient victims—such as conservatives attacked for their yard signs, small business owners vandalized during riots, or Tesla owners targeted by eco-mobs—are denied legal recourse.
Political violence gets a pass under Democratic logic
Equally telling was Fortunato’s unsuccessful push to add political affiliation as a protected category. He cited rising attacks—firebombings, property destruction, and assaults—against conservatives, libertarians, and even moderate Democrats deemed insufficiently radical. "They don't like somebody's political affiliation, and for some reason, they think that gives them the right to go out and destroy property," he said.
Dhingra’s rebuttal? Political protection isn’t in the law—so it shouldn’t be in the hate crime statute. "Until the law gets discrimination where political affiliation is a protected class, it is not one to be included," she argued—ignoring that such reasoning creates a self-perpetuating loophole where only state-favored groups get shielded.
Republican Senator Jeff Holy warned that the bill "punishes state of mind"—a slippery slope toward policing beliefs rather than actions. Meanwhile, Senator Jim McCune highlighted chilling cases, like a high school girl investigated for "misgendering" after refusing to compete against a biological male athlete. "That is really getting borderline to taking away our free speech," McCune cautioned.
A dangerous precedent: From hate crimes to thought crimes
Historically, hate crime laws emerged to address systemic violence against marginalized groups. But in today’s politically charged climate, they’ve morphed into tools for ideological enforcement. By omitting political dissent from protection, Washington’s law tacitly endorses a hierarchy of victimhood—where violence is condemned or excused based on the perpetrator’s and victim’s politics.
This mirrors tactics seen in authoritarian regimes, where dissidents are labeled "hateful" for challenging state orthodoxy. If a conservative is doxxed for opposing gender ideology, is that not hate? If a libertarian’s home is firebombed for supporting gun rights, is that not a bias-motivated attack?
As Washington’s bill moves toward final approval, one truth becomes undeniable: Hate crime laws are no longer just about justice—they’re about control. When Democratic legislators reject protections for their ideological opponents while enshrining them for favored groups, they’re not fighting bigotry—they’re institutionalizing it.
As Senator Fortunato noted, law is malleable—it reflects who holds power. The question is: When will the public wakes up to the fact that "hate" is being defined not by principle, but by politics?
Source include:
LawFiles.wa.gov [PDF]
Please contact us for more information.