I personally don't think it was a deliberate loophole. politicians ultimately look out for their own interests and repaying the party, lobbyists and interest groups who put them in office, which means satisfying a platform and an agenda. like many elements of the liberal agenda, hate-crimes legislation stems from good intentions but doesn't get refined beyond the good idea phase. no one sees beyond the most immediate potential positive outcome for their own little group or movement. but legislative and judicial precedent can be used by anyone who knows it's there regardless of the intent behind the initial decision.
I wonder how many of the architects of the original black civil-rights movement in the 1950s and 60s would have been so enthusiastic about the gay-rights movement using legislative and judicial precedents set back then to make their own political gains. who knows who'll come along in another three or four decades - probably sooner - and look back at this decision as an important step in legitimizing their own movement?
whether or not you think it's a good idea is heavily dependent on whether or not you personally benefit from it. everyone wants their own agenda to succeed, and every politician wants to get elected and then reelected. it doesn't seem that those behind this current development are very concerned about what may come out of their decisions in the long run.
