I have not experienced what you have in the deep red part of the US. There can be actors on both sides who don't act in good faith. I was looking at it more from an exchange of viewpoints instead of a dominant / submissive dynamic. When having an exchange of ideas with someone with an opposing viewpoint, it always valuable to understand why they have those beliefs. Then, once you establish that you can ask what facts would have to be known for their viewpoint to shift.
Are you suggesting we have food and art police? Would a government body decide what I am allowed or not allowed to do with my wagyu steak? Having freedoms sometimes mean we have to accept the actions of others we disagree with.
If I buy a book, it is not illegal to destroy it. Your analogy doesn't work. You are talking about acts that could affect the health and well being of others.
Most of the people I interact with have different viewpoints, and I consider it a positive. The danger is never examining your beliefs and just accept them, even when new facts come up or the environment changes.
quick google search for 3 second rule driving: