One of liberalism's neater tricks is convincing everyone that it creates an even playing field in the public square. A liberal government claims that it's above deciding questions of good and evil. It doesn't take sides in the debate except as an umpire who enforces the rules. It ensures that the extremists don't take power and oppress their neighbors with sectarian policies that violate the sanctity of others God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
To use a technical term from political science, this is balderdash. The essence of government is to tell people what to do. Man is a social and political animal, and it isn't possible to establish an "even playing field" in the real world. Refusing to decide is still a decision. It's not a coincidence that the State has grown ever larger and more intrusive as we've grown ostensibly more free and tolerant.
The frustrating thing about liberalism is that it's unaware it does this. Liberals are being sincere when they say they believe in equal rights for all. But they can't see that a right, by definition, implies discrimination and authority. I discriminate against uninvited strangers encroaching on my property. Speed limits are not equally enforced between truck drivers or bicyclists. A liberal government discriminates against those of us who want, say, a benevolent Catholic monarchy instead. Liberals can't understand why the Catholic Church is making such a big deal about the HHS mandate because the liberal rejects the authority of revelation, or at least doesn't think revelation should play an authoritative role in public policy.
Liberalism claims to do away with things like a ruling class, the aristocracy. But everyone knows that every liberal nation does indeed have an aristocratic ruling class (this will be confirmed in spades if the 2016 election turns out to be Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush.) The liberal aristocracy is based on going to the right schools and making the right connections. Once they've taken their places in the permanent government bureaucracy, the universities, and the media, they begin their careers in managing public perceptions and defining the rules of public discourse. Nonliberal concepts or questioning liberalism itself is not allowed. Traditional bonds of family and religion are tolerated so long as they are perceived to be freely chosen by the liberal superman, and can be severed at any time he pleases.
Everyone implicitly understands that if the ideas of "freedom and choice" were taken to their logical conclusion, it would be impossible to have a functioning society at all. You can figure out whether a public figure is a left-liberal or a right-liberal once you know what kind of unprincipled exceptions they're willing to make. Right-liberals, for example, like to describe the United States as a Christian country. But finding a mainstream right-liberal who opposes Muslim immigration per se is almost up there with unicorn hunting. Left-liberals are firmly in the drivers seat, and right-liberals, having accepted liberalism's frame, are in the position of grumbling that the left-liberals are moving too fast. Right-liberals may admit in private that they believe sodomy is one of the sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance, but they wouldn't ever say so in public. They end up earning everyone's contempt: left-liberals see them as foot-dragging out of unthinking bigotry, and Traditionalists and reactionaries see them as unprincipled cowards.
The manosphere likes to speak of taking the red pill as a metaphor for rejecting the lies of modern liberal society. To be sure, they get a lot of things right. Some of them, however, have only relocated to another corner of the Matrix. The real red pill is rejecting liberalism all together. And that's the work of a lifetime for those of us who never knew anything different until we reached adulthood.