I have found an excellent comment from an article here:

The “politically correct” speech movement is approaching the problem in the wrong way. People want “freedom” not in the abstract but in order to live in what might be called a bigoted way. Their way. But when several disparate groups move to the same continent “freedom” acquires a secondary meaning: preventing one community from telling another community how to live.

Freedom cannot survive in either of these senses if the state gets into the act of enforcing tolerance.

The ideal of limited government and the separation between church and state was introduced to prevent any one group of bigots from using the coercive power of the state to impose their ideas on all the other bigots. While the state remains limited you have both kinds of freedom: the freedom to indulge in your peculiar bigotry and the freedom of each from the bigotry of the others.

Once the state is used to enforce “tolerance” it unavoidably builds the machinery for enforcing intolerance. The PC machinery itself will inevitably become captured by the most powerful group of bigots because it is worth capturing. Because setting the state policy becomes decisive.

This is what we are seeing now. That is the danger, not the individual bigotry. It should matter not a whit whether some “Christian” baker refuses to bake a cake or some “Muslim” cabbie refuses a fare or some Marxist academic group wants to boycott the Jews for so long as they cannot enlist the state in their program of coercion.

Individual bigotry is trivial to counter. I’ll just to another baker, another taxi etc. Go down the street and find someone who’ll take my money. It is state sponsored correctness that is frightening. But once the machinery of PC enforcement is built, then the tolerance will be obligatory.