I can't tell you any official party stance on any particular legislation, but I'll tell you what I think of "hate crimes" legislation in general.

Crimes are crimes.  One motive does not make a crime worse than another motive.  An action is either an act of aggression or it isn't.  A victim should be compensated for their injury or property regardless of the attacker's motive.

"Hate crimes" are also based on collectivism rather than individualism.  They are based on lumping the victim into a group rather than treating them as an individual.  For example, if a victim is homosexual, collectivism tells us they are part of a persecuted minority group, and therefore are somehow worthy of special treatment as individuals.  "Hate crimes" legislation is an extension of this thinking into criminal law. 

As a libertarian, I reject the grouping of individuals into groups, and treating them differently based on those groupings.  Every individual is an individual, and should expect the same kind of respect for their person and property that every other person should expect.  There is no reason to set up divisions based on insert_privileged_status_here.

There's another horribly contradictory thing about defining hate crimes.  Consider these two crimes:

1)  A white guy kills a black guy.
2)  A black guy kills a black guy.

If #1 is deemed a racial hate crime, let's say the total punishment is life in prison with no chance of parole.  If #2 can't be deemed a racial hate crime simply by definition, let's say the total punishment is life in prison with a chance for parole in 10 years. 

Advocates of adding punishment for hate crimes say this deters that kind of behavior.  If that's true then doesn't a lesser punishment for crime #2 discourage that kind of behavior less?

This kind of double standard carries with it a terrible message.  That is, the protected class has less deterrence at performing self-genocide. 

Now isn't that a truly hateful message?

Mark