It's a balance, I won't deny. In order to protect some people, other people have rules (and yes, loss of freedoms) imposed upon them.
It truly gets all muddied when business licenses and their concomitant protections are included. The legal protections of a business license can quite reasonably include obligations. "Sorry, you want limited liability? You need to serve black people." The issue kicks in really hard once you force people to have those licenses.
"Sorry, you want to sell greeting cards on the street? Need a license. Here's a list of protections you get. Oh, and by the ways, you need to serve black people"
It's not easy to figure out how to do. DaveShack's list is an interesting one, because those people were historically brutalized. Christians get a tax writeoff if they contribute to a Bible-printing endeavour, even if that Bible includes a bunch of stuff against gays. Blacks used to be enslaved, I mean, c'mon, clearly there's an historical injustice here. Used to be legal to rape wives. Muslims (over a billion) can reasonably expect similar consideration regarding their restrictions that Jews achieved.
But, it's possible for liberals to go overboard. It's a valid criticism. A lot of what they fight for are rights that end up being zero-sum. Environmental activism is a great one. People want to help damage communal property (or even my property) for their own benefit. And so, in defense of that property, we pass restrictive laws. Sometimes, yes, too restrictive.
And then, where is copyright in this discussion? Clearly oppression, we just call it 'for the good of society'. The law literally says that I cannot draw Disney's Snow White on the greeting cards I want to sell. Restricting what I may do with my pen and my paper and denying I can engage in mutually beneficial trade with anyone I want.
But, conservative complaints about oppression should be considered. Especially when they're regarding zero-sum freedoms. Each particular case needs to be watched carefully.
