The right to free speech and association are not built upon 'consequences'. If you apply this logic neutrally, rather than solely to speech you find to be abhorrent, you get conclusions such as it's acceptable for people to 'face the consequences' of being fired and ostracized for supporting unions. Or that it's fine to lose your job for views on artificial insemination or abortion.
You don't want "freedom of consequences", you want opposing viewpoints to ostracized and silenced.
That "neutral logic" you presented has long been the default for free speech and free association in the US. But you write it as if you don't believe it's the case?
Trade unionists have long faced the consequences for their union support, including being murdered for it. Nowadays the National Labor Relations Act protects some union actions (in exchange for restricting what unions are allowed to do), so firing someone for union membership be illegal.
However, ostracism is certainly allowed, and I'm surprised you think it should be otherwise.
It can be illegal to lose your job if you are anti-abortion and your views are based on religious beliefs, as religion is a protected category, but I'm pretty sure that in some states if you are pro-choice and your position is not based on religion then you can be fired.
And people are certainly be ostracized for their views on abortion.
For that matter, in some states in the US you can be fired based on your political party membership. Or if you are Libra. Or "North Carolina High Court Upholds Firing of Deputies Who Didn’t Donate to [their boss’s] Campaign." - https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2016/02/01/3...
"Consequences" are a direct result of exercising our liberty. Quoting John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", chapter IV, "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual"
> We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.
i don't know... i've been on the fence for starting a small semi-public mastodon server for over 2 years now but the finances didn't make sense and i am not flooded with cash to throw at the problem so its just been in "ideation stage".
anyway, i want to do that,
You don't want "freedom of consequences", you want opposing viewpoints to ostracized and silenced.