Yes, this is what I meant. Libertarianism is defined by a focus purely on negative liberty, classical liberalism (e.g., liberal parties in Non-US Anglophone co

Yes, this is what I meant. Libertarianism is defined by a focus purely on negative liberty, classical liberalism (e.g., liberal parties in Non-US Anglophone countries) has a more broad focus, and social democracy/left-liberalism (generally called just liberalism in the US, but best expounded through John Rawl's excellent work) also adds the idea of social justice. Discrimination is indeed a challenging matter: obviously law against govenrment discrimination counts as negative liberty, but you could (and I personally would) also argue that restrictions on certain type of discrimination by individuals and businesses (in employment, housing, contracts, e.g., prohibitions on restrictive covenants for future home sales) might technically infringe on negative liberty of one group, but greatly increases positive liberty of everyone else. There are no simple answers here and I not having a true political science, law, or economics background I would not be qualified to offer one. That's why I tried to make my appeal for NNI as broad as possible: it is clearly a policy that -- compared with what we have today and other politically viable options -- is more just no matter which one of the common political philosophies you subscribe to.