Wow, what an incredibly tone deaf post. Do you hear yourself? And you dare to speak of equal rights? And entitlement? I mean, who is entitled here?

First, what are "equal rights" for gays? Are they deprived of the same general freedoms that people have? No. That includes violence. No one can be treated that way, including gays. Equal rights mean applying to all. As soon as you speak of "X rights", you're actually speaking of group-specific privileges or perhaps group specific rights. So what exactly is lacking here, because it's been one pro-gay victory after another, and at an accelerated pace. And do try to be a bit rigorous and precise here. I have no time for vague hand-waving or rehashed slogans. I am not interested in hearing about how some group is or isn't treated despite what the law requires. Even if true, that's a problem with respecting rights, not actual having rights or even legal recognition of rights.

Second, talking about chicken sandwiches as an example of oppression is truly absurd. Not only did almost every chicken sandwich chain celebrate pride month, but it's a chicken sandwich. Large corporations on the whole are very pro-gay. Corporations donate a good deal of money to various pro-gay groups and accommodate all sorts of things pro-gay things that are not even legally required to do. You point to the Dylan Mulvaney affair as if it proved how hostile the world is to those who call themselves transgender. You completely miss the point that the very fact that Budweiser even did that proves that corporations are "with it", even corporations that stake their entire brand on appealing to working class Republican types and frat boys. The backlash came as a surprise to them, and this is only possible if you've come to some confident judgement about what is safe to market. Think of all the big box stores like Target where many Americans do their basic shopping, something a bit more important than a chicken sandwich. They were all over Pride Month. That means that if those people want to shop there, they must contribute to pro-gay causes, even if they disagree with them.

The fact is that corporations, and the state, are becoming increasingly hostile and intolerant to those who do not agree with the normalization and promotion of same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. So to scream "equal rights!" is to cry out in pain as you beat your actual victim: those who disagree. The gay lobby has the backing of the regime, and that includes both the state and the private flank, namely, corporate power. Vandalism of such places as churches is on the rise because plenty of private citizens, too, are demonstrating a hatred for such disagreement.

Third, it's one thing to pass reasonable laws to reasonably regulate behavior for the sake of the common good, like banning cigarettes in restaurants (and the common good logically entails respect for bona fide rights). It's another to use coercive pseudo-legal tactics to force people to do what you want. In the example you've given, I dare say you are not only suggesting such coercion, but you are even suggesting its use to force conformity with what is objectively morally wrong. Meaning, I'm not going to pretend to be a moral relativist here, and it's clear neither are you, so let us simply drop the pretense of "neutrality". That bit of theater is no longer workable.