The argument made originally was that a social contract is made with the government that allows the government to limit ones freedoms. Something I disagree with in concept and reality. There are certain rights that are inalienable. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of thought, religion, sexual orientation and the rest. These are basic fundamental rights nobody and no government has the right to take away from you.
To quote the Americans, “You have the right to life, liberty and prosperity.”
The basic rights enshrined in the UDHR can not be limited by any government. If they do so, then you head down the way of the Taliban or Saudi Arabia who have violated these fundamental rights on a regular basis.
Additionally your two examples do not correlate. Your caveat of a “avey-cavey new age religion that spawned morally **dubious actions that impacted others]/b] - I would as a member of society feel it incumbent upon myself to curb those religious freedoms.”
That is a caveat that is not in place with the Niqab example. There are no dubious actions that impact others when you wear a Niqab.