Great, lets take each of your examples 1 by 1, and I'll give an explanation of why I think overturning Roe v Wade would be in a very different category:
1. Laws against gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in all US states since 2015. But specifically as it relates to encryption, even if gay marriage were made illegal again, it's not quite like people would be getting "surreptitiously" married (the whole point of legal gay marriage is legal benefits and societal acceptance), so I don't think folks would think that a governmental data request would somehow "expose" someone who was gay and married.
2. Lawrence v Texas outlawed most laws against homosexuality in 2003, before most people were aware of the issues of broad data collection (and before tech companies started to go all in on it). But I totally agree, if Lawrence v Texas were overturned, I think it would absolutely be in the bucket of Roe v Wade being overturned as it relates to tech workers thinking government data requests could be "evil".
3. Laws against drugs. Even if you disagree with the war on drugs, I think most tech workers, even if they were uncomfortable with a government data request for drug crimes, could quite easily rationalize it as "OK, the government is probably going after some big drug dealer who does bad shit. They're not likely going to ask Google for a data request for someone with a joint on them." I think that's fundamentally different from them thinking "The government wants data so they can arrest this woman who had an abortion."
4. Laws like asset forfeiture. Again, even if tech workers had real problems with asset forfeiture laws, I think most people could be able to rationalize a data request for it.
And perhaps most importantly is that Roe v. Wade has been the status quo for 50 years. It's not just about "tech workers disagree with a law", but it's about "tech workers seeing an important right being removed", and the emotions involved there are very different. If personal marijuana use was legal nationwide for 50 years, but then SCOTUS suddenly decided it would be OK for governments to start throwing people in jail for it, I think that would be a much more comparable situation.
1. Laws against gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in all US states since 2015. But specifically as it relates to encryption, even if gay marriage were made illegal again, it's not quite like people would be getting "surreptitiously" married (the whole point of legal gay marriage is legal benefits and societal acceptance), so I don't think folks would think that a governmental data request would somehow "expose" someone who was gay and married.
2. Lawrence v Texas outlawed most laws against homosexuality in 2003, before most people were aware of the issues of broad data collection (and before tech companies started to go all in on it). But I totally agree, if Lawrence v Texas were overturned, I think it would absolutely be in the bucket of Roe v Wade being overturned as it relates to tech workers thinking government data requests could be "evil".
3. Laws against drugs. Even if you disagree with the war on drugs, I think most tech workers, even if they were uncomfortable with a government data request for drug crimes, could quite easily rationalize it as "OK, the government is probably going after some big drug dealer who does bad shit. They're not likely going to ask Google for a data request for someone with a joint on them." I think that's fundamentally different from them thinking "The government wants data so they can arrest this woman who had an abortion."
4. Laws like asset forfeiture. Again, even if tech workers had real problems with asset forfeiture laws, I think most people could be able to rationalize a data request for it.
And perhaps most importantly is that Roe v. Wade has been the status quo for 50 years. It's not just about "tech workers disagree with a law", but it's about "tech workers seeing an important right being removed", and the emotions involved there are very different. If personal marijuana use was legal nationwide for 50 years, but then SCOTUS suddenly decided it would be OK for governments to start throwing people in jail for it, I think that would be a much more comparable situation.