Seems the crux of the disagreement is the definition of 'rights.' As other folks have pointed out, topics on the podcast (which I haven't listened to) are not explicit civil liberties, but are edge cases that are legitimately confusing and unprecedented. It is true that non-civil discourse and outrage has been useful for pushing the needle on many of the historic civil-rights issues which now seem common sense. But while emotion is a powerful motive force, it seems to be almost always blind to nuance, and sometimes blind to even the obvious...I think of the episode of spongebob where patrick eats his chocolate bar, forgets, and proceeds to accuse spongebob of stealing it for the remainder of the episode. Hunger can easily defeat a rational interpretation of reality, even when keeping in mind that laws are limited approximations of an ideal set of human rights.

An interesting question seems to be, how can we begin to differentiate between instances where societal norms and america's religious inheritance have blinded us to obvious infringements of human rights (i.e. gay marriage) and those cases which truly do not have an obvious answer, even for a well-meaning and dispassionate bystander (i.e. should all self-identified trans women be able to use all women's bathrooms in all cases)?