Brown vs Board was a supreme court case, which is exactly what I am arguing for. Or national legislation like the Civil Rights Act.
The only thing gained by antagonistic local activism (whether it is right wing ranchers occupying a national wildlife refuge or left wing students occupying wall street) is personal catharsis. To win the argument you need to win over the center, and moderates are turned off by this sort of thing.
This is a very, very old argument. If you want to waste a couple of hours google "propaganda of the deed."
Right, you're referring to actions of a minority. And saying that national legislation is effective because it reflects in some ways a majority view.
Gay and transgender rights, however, are nearly a majority view in many parts of the country (see Maine), and if anything the law restricting rights is the appeal to a minority. Since the weight of both history and demographic change is on the side of LGBT rights, the NBA is taking the side of the future consensus. Moving the game seems a lot like Jackie Robinson to me.
Also, this law wasn't passed to address a pressing problem. There was no populist swell calling for this law to be created to protect someone. The law was created to stoke hate for political advantage. To the extent the NBA action discourages future hatemongering and divisiveness in our politics, it will be a good thing.