To further my explanation, when someone is brought up on hate crime charges because he did something illegal with the motivation of that bias you would have to prove his initial prejudice. Doing so, puts the case of personal opinion the actual basis for the court case, at least the basis for the charges of hate crime. If you charge him with murder and a hate crime you have to prove that the assailant murdered the person, and that the persons opinions reflect that of being prejudice in the manner pertaining to the crime. Which makes it a separate crime based solely on thought, causing it to be a thought crime.
You can't charge someone with a hate crime if the person doesn't have a predisposition to the bias in question. You have to prove the person thinks this certain way. Your example doesn't disprove this in the slightest it's an attempt to destroy my argument by focusing on things like " well maybe the victim doesn't necessarily fall into the prejudice" it still doesn't change the fact that the entire scope of a hate crime case is on the basis of the perpetrators opinion on race, sex etc etc.