I feel like you either didn't read the article or completely missed its point.
But to answer your four questions, none of those things are racist. Two of them are discriminatory, one is addressed directly in the article and the last one is plain and simply concerning, but it's not racist.
Again, not defending them, just recontextualizing. You're doing exactly what the OP is calling out: Painting everything as racist rather than attack the actual issues. This is how we got in this mess.
But to answer your four questions, none of those things are racist. Two of them are discriminatory, one is addressed directly in the article and the last one is plain and simply concerning, but it's not racist.
Again, not defending them, just recontextualizing. You're doing exactly what the OP is calling out: Painting everything as racist rather than attack the actual issues. This is how we got in this mess.