Scalia is just wrong about this. It, quite simply, singles out a politically unpopular group, and tells them that the courts are closed to them for discrimination suits, but not for anyone else.
That is not "Equal Protection."
It is more complicated than that, isn't it. It was a poorly drafted statute. All they had to say was that sexual orientation will not be granted protected status for any claim of discrimination based solely on the sexual orientation of the complainant. The problem with the statute was that the actually did single out "homosexuals and lesbians" as a group (rather than sexual orientation) and then sought to deny them equal protection under the law. It was not that difficult to draft a constitutionally acceptable statute. This was not it. And if Roberts made the same arguments as you when he advised his "client" then he probably was adopting an acceptable interpretation of the constitution.
Someday I might even read the case.
I assume you're referring to homosexuals?
Why shouldn't the courts be closed to them for discrimination suits?
Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. It is not something that cannot be helped, like race.