One argument against the full face hijab get-up is that society has the right to demand that people not hide their face in public, that can facilitate crime. In a way, my lack of freedom to wear a ski mask into a 7-11 or on the street (except in blizzards) matches your freedom from fear of being robbed.
The point with civil rights laws was always a good one too - by removing the businessman’s right to discriminate against customers, it also removed the threat to the businessman that even should he want to server minority customers, to do so might drive away a significant number of prejudiced but lucrative customers.
Another example - in the first world, there is no need to legislate family sizes. The problem is not too many children, but the opposite. In a country which had just finished a serious famine and saw no end in sight (since rational self-directed food production methods were off the table) population control was a necessary step… your right to have children ends where my pantry begins, so to speak.
The big question always is - is the trade-off in lost rights a fair trade and effective in producing the desired goial? Is that goal truly desireable, and what about the law of unintended consequences?