I have never heard a market-oriented economist argue that a rise in the minimum wage boosts the demand for labor. You might try this argument: "The government is certifying that these workers are worth this much. The government is defining the market price. Entrepreneurs will believe that price and hire workers in the expectation of finding an equivalent or even superior marginal product. The government said that was the right price."
No go. Market-oriented economists instead claim that entrepreneurs "see through" to the real marginal products of these laborers. The demand for labor, rather than rising, would fall and unemployment would result.
So what happens when the Fed "sets" short-term interest rates or influences other prices? What is postulated by monetary misperceptions theories, including Austrian business cycle theory? Entrepreneurs no longer see through to the fundamentals. Instead, entrepreneurs are taken to believe this Fed-influenced rate is the correct price and they make their plans accordingly.
What is the difference between these two cases? I believe we need a better theory of when people take price signals as informative and when not. Too often people just assume that the inferential abilities, or lack thereof, go the way they want them to.