What I do when I "protect values I hold dear" is try to ensure that I continue those actions that I hold of value according to my belief. What I label as "imposing beliefs onto others" is taking any choice from other people and forcing them to pursue those actions I prefer.
For an example of this, let's talk about church tithes. I protect the values I hold dear by tithing to my church. What I don't do is lobby for legislation that calls for all people to pay a tax that would go to a particular religious organization. That would be imposing my beliefs on other people. I also lobby to prevent making tithing illegal, as it would impose others' beliefs on me.
Another example is beer and liquor. I protect the values I hold dear by choosing not to drink either beer or liquor. What I don't do is lobby for prohibition of beer and liquor, as that would be imposing my beliefs on other people. I'm also against requiring people to drink alcohol, as it would be an imposition on me beliefs that I don't have.
There's a fine line between the two.
Radical christian wants to ban contraceptives.
Drug warrior wants to criminalize marijuana
Neighborhood committee wants to restrict nightclubs from the area
Civil rights activist wants to prevent private clubs from discriminating
Concerned mother wants to keep pedophiles from living within 1 mile of a school
Veteran wants to ban protesters from marching outside military funerals
Conservative wants to prevent immigrants from accessing social services
Liberal wants to prevent people from owning rifles
These are all examples of people who are trying to impose their beliefs on others. I don't see how we can criticize one of them for trying to bend society to his vision while excusing the others as merely protecting their values. We can each make our own decisions about which of the impositions we agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all impositions. To single the first one out and call that religious fascism seems unfair.
But contraceptives are available now, and the major reason why they are being opposed is for religious reasons. This is just one of many examples of new technological advances being opposed for religious reasons. A current one is stem cell research. A past one was bar codes, as Christian leaders feared that it was the prophecy of the Mark of the Beast of the Anti-Christ being fulfilled.
So the danger here is technological advancements being declared illegal based on the religious beliefs of a particular doctrine.
I understand that this can be seen as a "danger," but how is it any different than a similar danger from another source? Put another way, if a person opposed stem cell research because of fiscal or non-religious moral reasons, how is that any less of a "danger" than if the person opposed it because they thought that Jesus wouldn't like it?