One of the main benefits of good governance is that their decisions are predictable and reliable. If we are to enshrine identity politics into routine administrative matters, which is exactly what this columnist is obliquely supporting, that leaves us with decisions which are even more capricious / arbitrary / subjective than we currently have. You don't want to go to your lawyer if you are a band and hear "Well, maybe we could get that name, but I am not sure you guys have enough Asian bona fides. Maybe you could replace the singer with someone from China rather than a half-Filipino?"
The best case scenario is that it will merely have a chilling effect, where any name even moderately edgy is avoided by people who don't think they will be able to match with present moment social justice criteria. But there is something very morally wrong with the government saying "We reject your [trademark / patent / immigration] application on the basis of your skin color." And I like some edgy things and names, including NWA, so I wouldn't want that to go away.
Is this entire thing merely my opinion and hopelessly normative? Yes. Could you find extensive academic discussions of all the relevant factors produced by X Studies departments that perfectly tease apart all the politically correct aspects that should be considered in these decisions? Presumably you could, or you would be able to if this became a hot-button issue. But weighed against simplicity of government, the ability to actually know the rules and follow them, I don't think that social justice wins. Let that debate take place in the market of ideas rather than in the halls of justice.
Ideally any word should be able to be copyrighted or whatever.
But if you want to ban words based on something, like racism or whatever. Don't be surprised when someone's sensibilities outpace yours.