It doesn’t matter that there are different harms from different things: what matters is that the harm to be prevented is a reasonable goal for a state government to pursue ( for the purposes of determining constitutionality).
Preventing invidious discrimination is a worthwhile goal for a state government to pursue, for the purposes of testing the constitutionality of a law, and that is what this law goes after.
I know you don’t like the part that addresses discrimination against homosexuals, but your dislike is not of a constitutional dimension.
Actually, if I hit you with a ping pong ball, it may be an annoyance, it may even damage you. If I hit you with a large rock, it may kill you and that makes it assault with a deadly weapon.
Preventing a building from falling over on those walking down the street (not to mention the occupants thereof) definitely takes precedence over
hurting the feelings of the builders by telling them the work is structurally inadequate.
As far as invidious discrimination goes, what about the now invidious discrimination against Christian Bakers who can be the subject pf pecuniary penalties for
not providing something they find religiously, and in keeping with well-established (millennia old) scripture , to be an abomination. Where is their relief for the assault of the Right of Christians to freely associate, engage (or not) in commerce, and to practice their trade in conformity with their Christian beliefs?
The court has put the celebration of deviant sexuality above well known and established religious belief, and fined the believers for their beliefs. Christians may well not want a religious war, but like it or not, we are being hunted in the courts already for simply following our beliefs. Yet somehow, that isn't "persecution" and isn't a violation of the First Amendment Rights of Christians. Try that with other religions. Would they be similarly sought as targets for coercion? (Let's see some homosexuals sue a Muslim bakery sometime).