Even if you don't believe that is what they are going to do, why are they in a position to make it possible at all?

As for distro users being restricted, read the referenced blog post, stuff like no non-fedora signed kernel modules, no custom kernels.

Not to mention the cluster fuck with CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL currently brewing in kernel land:

http://lwn.net/Articles/542327/

The real problem being, that now kernel functionality is beholden on wither it can comprise an existing windows boot somehow when booting with secure boot.

That's just misinformed FUD. The shim bootloader allows user to enroll her own keys, which allows her to boot to whatever code she wants. So installing your custom kernel might require extra step or two, but it's certainly not being entirely restricted from users.

From my point of view the signing requirements are added in the spirit of "if we are going to support SB, lets at least do something useful with it", and not as you put it "to prevent windows from being "compromised"".

Please read http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html its the best document detailing the changes they are putting into place.

I'm very well aware of that. Here is another post from mjg59's blog that you might find enlightening:

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18945.html

Especially the sections "Providing user control over trust" and "Providing user control over signature verification". A highlight for you:

Anything signed with the user's key will then be trusted.

edit: Here is another link detailing the shim bootloader mechanism:

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20303.html

They are in that position anyways. Supporting or opposing SB does not change that.