Freedom from Consequences

That seems to be what Supreme Court Jusice Samuel Alito is demanding here; this came under the broad heading of "religious freedom":

During his half-hour-long speech, Alito warned that not only is freedom of belief increasingly under threat, but freedom of expression is as well.

"One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech. Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right,” he said.

The fallacy here is that somehow -- if, or course, you're the "right people", you should be able to say or do whatever you want without consequences. If you indluge in, for example, anti-gay bigotry, then expect to be labeled a bigot. Cloaking it in a belief in "traditional" marriage (one man and -- how many wives was that, King Solomon?) doesn't quite disguise the meaning: you can believe what you want. Where that freedom ends is when you claim the right to force others to cater to your beliefs.

And that's the second fallacy, which too many people seem ready to accept: forcing others to cater to your personal beliefs is somehow an inherent part of "religious freedom". Unfortunately for that argument, it's a given that all rights have limits. As for being called a bigot -- snowflake!

It's a fairlly revealing article, in one respect, at least: in the age of Trump, the masks are coming off.

Via Joe.My.God.