Yours is the argument posed by employers who posted "Blacks need not apply" adverts. Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on? Anyway, by "oppression", I was referring to the OPs implicit suggestion that were prohibit unpopular speech, which is oppression.

Race is a protected class where we as a society have explicitly decided that there are societal benefits to overriding free association in the course of the transaction public business (emphasis on public, both in the governmental and the "running a business" sense of the term). "Racist jerk" is not a protected class.

So, yes, I'm quite comfortable with this hill. It has a nice shining city on it. Shame its originators abandoned it. (They never really liked it anyway.)

Race wasn't protected in the fifties either, and yet few would argue that it only became oppressive when the laws were changed. Those who would support your argument are the very same you would evict from your holy hill!

If racist jerks end up actually oppressed instead of having to deal with the consequences of their very specific and very active choices (which stand in stark contrast to the genetic/external-social of "race"), I am entirely and one hundred percent onboard with having a conversation about whether society is made better by considering them a protected class. I will not hold my breath on either the likelihood of that oppression nor on whether society is made better by enabling them.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you just whatabouting?

I gave my argument, you responded to it with an incorrect nitpick, I corrected you, you tried to dig your way out, and here we are now.