Since the beginning of this leg of lockboxed/backgrounded patron-warlocks, I have said I would suggest they play another class of they did not want an npc relationship that mattered in game, that was a part of the game in play. So if the last bit is where the backgrounder crowd has reached now, we are in agreement.You seem to be equating the player and the PC.
No one (as far as I'm aware) is saying that the PC decides what the patron wants.
I (at least, but maybe [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is sympathetic?) am saying that, as a player and as a GM, I expect the player of a cleric or warlock or whatever to establish the requirements imposed by his/her god/patron/etc. I've never found this to be a problem: eg if a player wants to play an assassin or freebooter then they simply choose not to play a cleric of Bahamut (much as [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] suggested upthread).
But if the BGC is still at controlling both sides of the patron-warlock or god-cleric relationship/bargain/agreement or being able to dismiss it from the game, then the point about the disconnect from the rest of the world in-game still stands. Why do other warlocks and clerics end up with arrangements that fit the relationships described in the rules and setting and not necessarily ones totally dictated by one side of these milquetoasts hand out "nah, really whatever you want" deals on demand?
Like the races examples, its insisting that your character be exempt from the setting impacts of choices... which gets a no at my table.