This pernicious idea — that religious liberty somehow means the right to discriminate against others who don’t share that religion — is a rallying cry on the right.

It taps into a certain Christian persecution complex.

Thomas and Alito are far from alone, and sadly, many cases will be coming to the Court’s attention soon that will test their legal reasoning.

Does the city of Philadelphia, for example, have the legal right to withhold a foster/adoption contact from Catholic Charities because Catholic Charities will not abide by LGBTQ non-discrimination clauses?

Catholic Charities claims, rather incredibly, that their right to practice religion is somehow infringed if they are denied a taxpayer-funded contract because they will not abide by the civilly neutral terms of the contract.

In almost the exact same sense as Kim Davis, they are demanding the right to perform as agents of the state while selectively deciding which provisions of state law and regulations they will obey.

Because their religion tells them to.

They demand the right to discriminate against same sex couples, to infringe the liberty of those couples, and they say that if they don’t have that right they will lose their own liberty.

Clearly, Thomas and Alito agree with them.

If their reasoning becomes commonplace and accepted, then what liberty will remain to Americans? Will we be free only insofar as religious institutions tell us we are allowed to be free?

That’s how it seems.