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.
"How can you critique a case you haven't read!!!???" yelped Jude24.
If it was a "poorly drafted statute", why would the SCOTUS have to get involved? Why would it be a federal issue?