An individual private citizen not letting you onto their property is categorically different from the state passing laws dictating where individuals who aren't prisoners, captives or wards of the state may travel, commune, and reside--and it's an astonishing notion that anyone would try to conflate one with the other and expect to be taken seriously when they say it's "not about curtailing freedom".
A word of advice then: best state that immediately from the very beginning next time, instead of equivocating your way around the point for days. The minute you start talking about "curtailing freedom" there is one inextricable link that conjures in the mind from this type of language: the state.
Backing off it once the horse has been beaten into putty to say "oh I wasn't talking about the state" just looks like you're doing all of this for sport and not attempting to hold an actual meaningful position before finding a convenient escape hatch out of the discussion.
