There’s no “protection” involved here. It is all about power over others.
Kohomo
Note that the Founding States made the Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 10 of Article I to prohibit the states from establishing privileged classes. And this is arguably what this city ordinance that protects so-called LGBT people is doing imo.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphases added].
The protection ordinance will also probably lead to the abridgment of 1st Amendment-protected right of religious expression for Christian business owners imo, owners who may have convictions against doing business with LGBT people. The major constitutional problem with this is that such abridgment of constitutionally enumerated right by the state is expressly prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Also, note that 14A gives Congress the power to legislatively strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression as it concerns the example of this thread. But Congress has failed to do its job concerning such protections imo.