I think it will always inherently affect some "freedom" but some of them may so contrived and the competing concerns so unevenly stacked between the "freedom to X" and the "freedom from X" that there's legitimate case to be made. Your interracial marriage example would clearly be one - it has significant impact on the quality of life on one side, and no remotely similar impact on the quality of life on the other side.

It's only when the "freedom to" and the "freedom from" are legitimately at least somewhat evenly stacked in how it affects people that it ought to be an issue given careful consideration.

That freedom of gay people does affect the freedom of religious fundamentalists to prevent what they consider sin from happening.

But in general, there might exist creative counterexamples. I haven’t found any though.

I think that's stretching the meaning of "freedom" well beyond the point of usefulness.

In other words freedom is like energy. It is finite.

Religion is an artificial limitation

> That freedom of gay people does affect the freedom of religious fundamentalists to prevent what they consider sin from happening.

Except that this is not a good faith or legitimate freedom. Hurting people is not a freedom to anyone but a complete sociopath. The fact that the law forbids me from detonating a bomb in times square is not a restriction on any part of my ability to live life.

And yet for centuries, the freedom of the sociopaths, as you described them, was valued higher than the freedom of gay people. We decided that we should protect the latter from the former by restricting the ability of religious people to act in accordance with their worldview very recently.

So?

So your “good faith” is an arbitrary criterion and doesn’t change anything.