That’s really not entirely true. For example, anti-discrimination laws remove some of the rights of landlords and employers because they no longer have the same freedom to select their tenants and employees. Now, I don’t have much sympathy for bigots, but there are going to be people who get sued because they didn’t rent to a gay person, or hire a gay person, even though that person’s sexual orientation wasn’t the reason.
On the whole, the tradeoff is worth making. I strongly support laws like the one in the OP. But it’s disingenuous to say that the law doesn’t remove any rights or protections.
Also, I don’t think it’s appropriate for an elected official to give religious justification for a recently passed law. But in this case at least it’s a message of tolerance rather than one of hate.
But in that case, they discriminate on the basis of sex. Which is still unconstitutional. Ok so I’m not an expert on the US constitution, but if it isn’t unconstitutional, it should be.
You just can’t violate someone’s voting rights based on sex, according to the constitution. Laws making sex a protected class in general are just run of the mill ordinary laws.