We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads).
Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender.
Transgender people are a tiny percentage of LGBT people, so using them to characterize all LGBT is intentionally misleading.
Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
The US has a recent history of racial discrimination that prevented a lot of people from building wealth in their communities or generational wealth. Not that there aren't a shit ton of white people living in trailer parks, but no one was denying them home loans because of the color of their skin.
So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family.
Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
You're reading it wrong. They weren't saying that there's an equal chance for anyone to be born poor as to be born wealthy, they were saying the chances are the same for a straight person to be born either poor or wealthy as for a LGBT person to be born either poor or wealthy.
This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.
What a horrible place you immediately jumped to. Historically and systemically disadvantaged does not mean or imply intrinsically disadvantaged. Jesus.
