This could pass as the average profile of a right wing conservative in America. The overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022 is what some are calling the thin edge of the wedge. Soon, they fear, all other freedoms and rights will be under threat, all sanctioned by the highest authority in the land.
I pose a way out of this scenario, tentatively proposing that it meets with the principles of humanism:
Whoever defends the greatest freedom to be and the greatest freedom of expression, in accordance with the principles of moral reciprocity and equal consideration of interest, has the right to over-rule and if necessary subdue those who seek to limit and deny such expressions only in accordance with their personal, unsupported beliefs.
This could possibly be justified as follows:
The overruling of authoritarians, who by definition base their authority on unsupported claims and beliefs, should not be unacceptable to them, because overruling others without appeal is precisely what authoritarians advocate. Being overruled cannot therefore be seen as immoral or unjust on the part of authoritarians, and is on the contrary a natural consequence and indeed a practical application of their insistence of the denial of the rights of others without rational basis or appeal.
Perhaps with a little work this could fly and would meet with the principles of humanist reason and ethic.