Vagueness in this case is not a bug. It is a feature.
I would disagree. If a right is so important as to require enjoining localities from infringing upon it, it should warrant a mention by the legislature.
Our constitution was wisely set up (in terms of power/freedom):
1) Individuals: most free/most power
2) Localities
3) States
4) Federal government: least power
We have not quite inverted that idea, but I would say we are now:
1) Individuals: most free/most power (though significantly less)
2) Federal government
3) States
4) Localities
This encourages polarization and polemics. It creates zero-sum games where one party (group) wins and another loses.
Instead, we need more power in localities so that, although zero-sum games exist, EXIT of those games is far more easy.
Some stupid locality prohibits minorities in their public parks? (To try to tie this back into the point of the thread.) Move and stop supporting that locality.
Yes, we'd have a few racist, sexist, "intolerant" places. We have that now, too. I believe conflict would decrease if we stopped using the federal government against those behaviors, ugly as they may be.