I’m aware it’s not a protected class - that was the point of my initial comment. But your rebuttal implied “hate crimes” were defined as those based upon properties of a person they had no control over - with a major caveat for religion as well. My point was if you can include something a person chooses to believe as an additional exception, then that opens up an extremely wide swath of possible exceptions.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not arguing against the inclusion of religion, just saying that the inclusion can be used to crowbar in any number of other “classes” to be protected as well simply because they’re based upon beliefs.