They are forfeiting a chance to score some points, while aligning with an unsupportable element and potentially undermining those they most wish to protect.

For example, with the Canadian Bill C-16 law, they are writing into law that gender identity, gender expression, and sexual preference are entirely subjective and fluid social constructions. Aside from that being scientifically false, what does that do to biological explanations of homosexuality and gender dysphoria? What about trans people who would rather go without undue attention and well-disguised discrimination that might crop up due to possible legal consequences of interacting with trans folk (hate speech for using the wrong pronoun.) Who are the people licensed to speak on behalf of all these groups? This doesn't take into account compelled speech, which I don't think would be possible here, but is in Europe and Canada.

It's an issue that stuck to them last time and will stick again; it's not going anywhere and the anti-MLK approach is not ultimately going to be a winner. Really don't see how they can avoid some kind of reckoning.