Laws. It's odd, don't you think, that before Lawrence vs. Texas made sodomy legal in the US, people like you weren't berating homosexuals for breaking the law by engaging in sodomy. Somehow you managed to understand that the existence of a law doesn't imply that the law is constitutional, ethical, in accord with human rights, and that it simply implies that the government is going to enforce the meaning of the law. You pointing to freedom-gutting, human rights destroying, anti-discrimination laws doesn't tell us anything other than government will continue to wage its war on human rights.
Rights. This is bizarro-world stuff. Forcing associations onto people who don't want those associations in order to spare the feelings of the rejected person is an inversion of human rights. It privileges feelings over actual human rights. It conjures up the cockamamie notion that "not being rejected" is a human right that we're all entitled to. It erases away the violation of human rights which occurs from forced association.
Court Cases. Need I go through all of the court cases which have been reversed. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a court case to. How did that work out?
"If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
Break, By Three days grace
Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016