Appeal to consequence?

There have been times people have been debating, and person on one side of the debate would often respond to a persons claims in like fashion: “No that can’t be true because that will be used to justify racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc.” 

Broadly speaking I’d hear different versions of the same response. This always sat wrong with me because whether or not something is true is not determined by whether or not it inspires something negative or positive. But I’ve seen people dismiss  a factual claim, or a claim that was backed up by facts, simply because they feel that if such a claim were to be accepted as truth, it would inspire more instances of such things. This felt like an appeal to consequence to me, but I’m curious is there something else at work here? 

The scenario you've described is indeed an example of the "appeal to consequence" logical fallacy. Let's break down why this is the case and identify any other logical issues or cognitive biases that might be at play.

### Appeal to Consequence
**Definition**: The appeal to consequence fallacy occurs when someone argues that a belief cannot be true (or should not be believed) because the consequences of accepting that belief would be undesirable.

**Example**: "No, that can't be true because if it were, it would justify racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc."

In your scenario, a person dismisses a claim not based on the veracity of the evidence presented but based on the potential negative social outcomes if that claim were accepted. This is a clear-cut appeal to consequence because the argument is focused on the undesirable outcomes rather than the factual basis of the claim.

### Additional Logical Issues and Cognitive Biases

1. **Strawman Fallacy**:
- **Definition**: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
- **In Context**: It is possible that the person dismissing the claim might be constructing a simplified or exaggerated version of the original point to argue against it. For example, they might be suggesting that acceptance of a factual claim would inevitably lead to extreme forms of discrimination, which might not be a direct or necessary consequence.

2. **Slippery Slope Fallacy**:
- **Definition**: Arguing that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.
- **In Context**: The argument might implicitly suggest that accepting a certain claim will lead inexorably to widespread negative social outcomes. This isn't always true, and asserting such a chain of events without evidence is fallacious reasoning.

3. **Moralistic Fallacy**:
- **Definition**: Assuming that because something would be morally preferable, it must be true.
- **In Context**: The reasoning might stem from the belief that because a certain claim would have negative moral repercussions, it cannot or should not be true. This flips the is-ought problem, assuming that "ought" dictates "is."

4. **Confirmation Bias**:
- **Definition**: The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs.
- **In Context**: The person might be ignoring factual information because it conflicts with their preconceived beliefs about what would be socially or morally acceptable, thereby refusing to acknowledge evidence-based claims.

5. **Status Quo Bias**:
- **Definition**: The preference for the current state of affairs and the resistance to change.
- **In Context**: They might be resistant to accepting new information that could disrupt current social norms or beliefs, leading them to reject claims that they perceive as potentially destabilizing.

### Conclusion
The primary fallacy at play here is indeed the appeal to consequence, where the truth of a claim is dismissed based on potential negative outcomes rather than the evidence provided. However, this reasoning can also be intertwined with other logical errors and cognitive biases, such as the strawman fallacy, slippery slope fallacy, moralistic fallacy, confirmation bias, and status quo bias. Recognizing and addressing these issues is crucial for fostering more rational and evidence-based discussions.