As usual, the people who yell the loudest about hypothetical jack-booted government thugs are perfectly happy with actual jack-booted government thugs as long as they’re aimed at someone else.

Note also that the small-government, local-is-always-better anti-Fed/states’ rights crowd is totally happy with the feds overriding the state and city government in Portland, even while they complain about state-level mandates in Sacramento.

Throw some other guy into an unmarked van? Fine! Tell me to follow health guidelines? TYRRANY!

I often see conservatives say that they see individuals where liberals see groups. But it doesn’t track. Conservatives are regularly willing to exclude whole groups of people, then allow exceptions. On the same issues, liberals often allow groups, then exclude individuals.

Put another way, liberals want to ensure everyone eligible is allowed access, and conservatives want to ensure everyone ineligible is denied access.

Voting rights, immigration, social programs… Even if they agreed on who should be eligible, the priorities are different.

Of course, we don’t agree on who is eligible, for a lot of issues. And some of those issues are who’s eligible to be treated humanely.

One more time, religious freedom means you get to practice your religion, not force other people to follow yours. This isn’t complicated.

Imagine for a moment that [insert religion you don’t like] lobbies the government to force you to follow their rules on behavior, dress, etc. You see where this is going, right? Because you have imagined it. Now think for a minute, because it’s the same thing.

Religious freedom has to apply to everyone — including minority religions and those without religion — or it isn’t freedom, it’s favoritism.

You don’t like birth control? Don’t take it. But don’t block other people from taking it when you’re in a position of power over them.

That’s not you following your religion. That’s you forcing other people to follow your religion. And that infringes on their freedom.