Keep in mind that every culture has blasphemy laws. What you're seeing here is not the removal of blasphemy laws, but the culture's switch from one god to another.
The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there.
And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
However ham-fisted this new law is, attempts to prevent:
> prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics (sometimes described as "intersex" physical or biological characteristics).
, that's to say things which you cannot choose (except religion), is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion du jour - not just a straight swap.
Blasphemy laws weren't justified on the basis of protecting a religion, but to safeguard souls from being led astray into eternal damnation, or to stop the spread of harmful immoral activity. They were to serve the greater good, just like this law.
Excommunication was a perfectly good threat if the aim was genuinely to safeguard souls. The ulterior motive behind the escalated punishment and law, was the potential risk of allowing people to live their lives outside the church, or as part of another religion - an existential threat to the dominance of the Catholic church as an institution.
It was justified on that ground. That doesn't mean there was no ulterior motive.
But this doesn't respond to the main point I was trying to make - this new law is not just a "switch from one god to another".
It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?
It isn't even about prejudice which will already be illegal for discrimination in hiring, etc. It's simply about saying things which might make other people feel "bad" feelings. Pretty similar to offending a religious person by saying their God is wrong. That stirs up hate too and it deeply hurts people.
Yes and I think I already explained how I believe that to be the case.
But to expand it to your example, how does an attempt to improve prejudiced actions against all people of faith, sexual orientation, etc. support a state institution? What is the ulterior motive and which power structure is benefitting from it? From what I can see - none. It's just a change in society's morality.