The title was, that it hit a nerve, that bill. It seems that truely is the case...
This is an invalid argument. You are effectively defending a practice based on the argument that it's not widespread. That's the same as saying that we don't need to protect transgender issues because they hardly ever get discriminated against. No -- for one, you cannot say for certain how widespread the practice is (and "I'm transgender myself" does not make you an authority on that), and second: low prevalence is not a reason for not prohibiting something. What's next? We shouldn't make laws against police violence because they kill less than 100 people/year?
If you really want to see casteism dissolved, you should not oppose laws trying to codify exactly that.
That's absurd. The laws aren't for people who wouldn't discriminate. They're for the people who demonstrably do.
Not a legal expert but this is extremely far fetched. You must have a great deal of contempt for the US legal system if you think this.