Former tennis champion turned preacher Margaret Court has claimed anti-marriage equality voices will be excluded from public debate in a submission to the Ruddock religious freedom review.

The review – which had its reporting date extended to 18 May after it was inundated with submissions – published the first batch late on Thursday, with replies demonstrating a high degree of coordination by anti-marriage equality forces.

Of the more than 16,000 submissions received, more than 500 were from six batch lots expressing similar concerns about the ability of religious people to manifest their beliefs after the passage of marriage equality legislation in December.

One set warns that “Christian hospitals, aged care, education institutions and care organisations may be inhibited by anti-discrimination laws”.

“I am concerned that if I publicly express my opposition to same-sex marriage, my opposition to transgender ideology or forms of sexual activity that I consider immoral, I could face action under discrimination, equal opportunity or vilification laws.”

The largest set, submitted by 248 people, calls for a right for parents to withdraw their children from “classes teaching radical LGBTIQ sex and gender theory”.

It also said: “In the same way, a Muslim printer should not be forced to print copies of the Torah, wedding service providers should not be forced to participate in a vision of marriage that violates their sincerely held beliefs on marriage.”

Guardian Australia has reported that Christian schools have sought to protect their right to hire and fire teachers based on adherence to religious practice while the Catholic church and Sydney Anglican Church have called for a religious freedom act to positively protect religious exemptions to discrimination law.

Many of the religious safeguards called for – including “no-detriment” provisions, parental rights to withdraw children from classes and a guarantee regarding free speech about what constitutes a marriage – mirror the amendments in the James Paterson same-sex marriage bill, which were defeated.

In her submission, Court warns that Australia is “forsaking foundational truths and the blessings that have made [it] great”.

She calls for the panel, led by former attorney general Phillip Ruddock, to ensure “that Christianity will not be silenced or stifled in Australia”.

Court included several papers from academic Augusto Zimmermann claiming that marriage equality had wide-ranging consequences for Christian bakers, photographers and florists who refused to serve same-sex weddings.

The Presbyterian church of eastern Australia warned that religious protections in the marriage equality law were “woefully inadequate” because they did not contain exemptions to allow civil celebrants “who have a conscientious position on marriage” to refuse same-sex weddings.

Despite the fact religious ministers are still able to refuse same-sex weddings, the submission claimed the church had “effectively lost the freedom to teach and preach all that the Bible says about marriage in our own church buildings”.

Academic George Williams called for religious freedom to be protected but warned it “should not be by way of a standalone right”.

“This would introduce a different problem by privileging religion over other freedoms, such as freedom of speech and the right to equality,” he said.

Williams warned freedom of religion “must not be used as cover to wind back historic gains towards equality made by women and other groups”.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils called for a bill of rights, following the Canadian or New Zealand model, to give effect to all Australia’s obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights.

In the alternative, it suggested a Religious Freedom Act, to include “freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching”.

The Equality Campaign – which successfully prosecuted the yes case in the postal survey – called for the removal of exemptions in discrimination law that allow religious institutions such as schools, hospitals and aged care facilities to discriminate against staff and clients based on beliefs.

The exemptions “go too far” – allowing publicly funded religious social services to “lawfully turn away LGBTI people, single mothers and others where this refusal is in line with the charity’s religious beliefs”.

“Religious exemptions act as a barrier to vulnerable people accessing the support services they need,” it said.

Many submissions warned that the Greens intended to remove religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act.

In January the deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, said the opposition had no plans to change religious exemptions.