I never heard this type of talk before:
Some of the objections and justifications for eruvs
It claims a public area as a private area: supporters say it’s purely symbolic and does not make the area any less public.
It takes over a public space for a religious purpose: this argument is particularly strong in the USA – eruv supporters reject this argument saying it fails because the public space is only changed for Orthodox Jews; it remains unchanged for non-believers.
It breaches human rights by giving a religious Jewish role to the walls and fences of non-Jews: supporters say that the symbolic role that the boundary has for a Jew does not exist for non-Jews, therefore their rights are not affected. The non-Jew retains the right to demolish the wall, or do anything else they want to it.
It breaches the human rights of non-Jews because they are forced to pass through symbolic Jewish structures when they go in and out of the eruv: supporters say that the symbolic role that the boundary has for a Jew does not exist for non-Jews, therefore their rights are not affected.
Excerpted from BBC.co.uk on Judaism.
Some of the other objections and counters are interesting, too. I am not ashamed to admit I do not always know who’s “right” or how to respond; it’s too deep.