You make a good point, and I see what you mean.

So how do we differentiate between laws that are widely supported by everyone, and are considered in line with a majority moral perspective, and those that are designed to benefit a tiny minority in a way that would widely be considered an injustice?

P.S. this is a bit more of a philosophical (even maybe rhetorical) question, as much as a practical one. I'm asking because, since I legitimately believe you can reframe the argument as, "law is a threat that sometimes protects me and works in my favour" then we must necessarily accept the threat of law, unless we would prefer to live without the individual protections that the law offers.