I think if anyone was stupid enough to bring this to a court alleging a hate crime that the court would have a few words to say to the prosecutor an one just might be the old legal maxim of de minimis non curat lex - the law doesn't concern itself with trivialities (rough translation).
I think it's stupid because differentiating MORALLY between animals on similar levels of the food chain is stupid. Either you eat mammals or you don't. I can understand vegetarianism because in fact it's quite a different thing than being an omnivore. But if you eat any mammal you should be willing to eat any other similarly evolved mammal. I could understand refusing to eat simians because they are almost human, but dogs, cows, lambs, rabbits, cats.........and pigs, what difference does it make?
Pork, good for you, bad for Muslims and Jews.
I know what sometimes is tried on and why - and I know the courts (in my own area of course, can't speak for anywhere else) get quite cranky about it. And rightly so. Trivial stuff should be taken somewhere else. But then we - Australia - have enough tribunals that can deal with this sort of dispute. Since they exist they may as well work.
It USED to make sense. I think it's in Leviticus that the dietary constraints are laid out (Leviticus in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, the OT being the Tanakh in Judaism - not meaning to offend any Jews with the OT reference) and they made sense if you were a nomadic community living in a desert. Pig meat is notoriously full of all kinds of nasty stuff so it makes perfect sense to avoid it, I mean you wouldn't want a highly contagious intenstinal disease to sweep through your camp somewhere in the desert. But hanging onto the old ways when they have no use value in contemporary times is silly.
Just a note - I'm not religious but I'll give anyone respect regarding their religious views so I am not canning anyone's religion here.