By "laws of Physics," we should mean the equations describing physical phenomena. Their invariance does not mean that the same phenomenon is described in the same way in different reference frames. This is clearly wrong. It means that if we prepare our experiments in the same way in different reference frames the invariance of the equations implies the same solutions and the practical impossibility of deciding only on the basis of the phenomena what the motion of the reference frame is.
From the historical side, one should distinguish between what we call Galilean invariance and what Galileo meant by his ship argument.
Galilean invariance is limited to the classical mechanics formalism. Galileo's ship argument has a much wider meaning. Even if mechanics dominated the physics of Galileo's time, the ship argument was not limited to mechanical phenomena. When Galileo wrote (translation as in this Wikipedia page )
... The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the course of the ship, from which they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it, and to the air also.
He claimed that no phenomenon allows the distinction of the motion of two reference frames in uniform relative motion. Flies, butterflies, and fish are not exclusively mechanical systems. Still, they behave the same way.