Quote:

It is legal in every state. Why is it an issue for you?

You're a lawyer, and I'm not, and you specialize in this area of the law, while I certainly don't. But I'm not sure that the legality of firing an employee for something like this is as unquestionable as you've suggested. A very quick internet check ( I know. I know, OK?) says this:


Despite this relativity, most states agree that the following reasons for termination would violate public policy and would therefore be illegal:

• terminating an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act (such as refusing to falsify insurance claims or lie to government auditors)
• terminating an employee for complaining about an employer's illegal conduct (such as the employer's failure to pay minimum wage), and
• terminating an employee for exercising a legal right (such as voting or taking family leave).

Note what they are saying there. It is, in many cases, illegal to terminate an employee for exercising a legal right. That is not the same as exercising freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech ONLY applies to government actors. Period. There is no "freedom of speech" applicable to private actors (like private employers). So, we are talking about apples and oranges.


They have zero -- and I mean ZERO -- chance of winning such a lawsuit.

Why? They made their employer look bad. Why would termination be "reprehensible?"



Why? Why does it matter where he/she got the shirt? If it says COMPANY and they work for COMPANY, why does it matter where they got the shirt?



Why? B/c you have NO RIGHT to your job. NONE. This is what kills me! A job is not a right, it is a privilege. You have zero right to employment. None. So, if you do something to make your employer look back, you damn well should lose the privilege to work for that employer. Amazing to me how many people think employment is a right.



Yeah, they really are. You are only on that trip b/c (a) you work for Employer and (b) employer is paying for you to be there.

So what? Do you have an employment contract? What are the terms? If not, you have absolutely, positively, zero right or entitlement to that job.

I agree. But, if your off-duty misconduct brings disrepute to your employer, legally, the employer can fire you for it. Everyone on this webite, everyone with a twitter account, everyone with an on-line presence, better understand this. This is a new era. This is a new area of the law. Those of us in this practice area will "make" law. I have already done so in a couple different jurisdictions. If an employee does not think his/her off-duty misconduct can impact his/her job, then he/she better get up to date on this area of the law or be in for a nasty surprise.

The law (in most states) specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of lawful use of a lawful product. So, one could not be fired for owning firearms, drinking, smoking, etc. But, if you work for a Catholic organization then, yes, you could be fired for supporting same sex marriage. The law requires that your off-duty conduct somehow relates to your job (usually, there are exceptions). So, your "slippery slope" has already been addressed by the court -- I promise you. I have handled, literally, dozens of these cases. It is pretty easy to tell when conduct (vs. misconduct) is in play.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The law (in most states) specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of lawful use of a lawful product. So, one could not be fired for owning firearms, drinking, smoking, etc.

Do you think that should be the case? Because you've been pretty clear in arguing that nobody has any right to their job. Why should the law make an exception to that principle in the case the use of a lawful product?

if you work for a Catholic organization then, yes, you could be fired for supporting same sex marriage.

What if I'm a waiter? (My hypothetical restaurant is non-sectarian.) I've donated money to lobby against same sex marriage in California. Gay rights activists have my name and $50 donation on a list, and picket the restaurant I work at. Can I be fired? I'm a little confused, because you seem to have said that I can't be fired in this situation- my off duty behavior doesn't relate to my job, right? And yet, it seems to have brought "disrepute" to my employer in the same way as the two idiots at the Tomb did.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes, I do. My point is, and has been, that an "at-will" employee can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it is not an illegal reason. Well (in many/most states, but not all) it is illegal to fire someone for lawful use of a lawful product. You have a right to vote. You have a right to own firearms. You don't have a "right" to free speech without consequence. Your "right" is that government cannot stifle your free speech.

You cannot fire someone b/c of their religion, their race, their ethnicity, their gender. In many states, you cannot fire someone b/c of their sexual orientation, their marital status, their military status, or their lawful use of a lawful product. IMO, that's the way it should be.

You do not have a "right" to your job. But, that does not mean an employer can fire you for an illegal reason.


Possibly, but, likely not. Your hypo is not the same as that of the two idiots at the Tomb. Those two were on a business trip paid for by the employer. Had these two been on a personal trip, wholly unrelated to their job, the situation would be different. Had they identified themselves as employees of Company, even if on a personal trip, they could be in the same boat.

What makes this situation "easy" for me is the fact that they were on a business trip paid for by their employer. That makes it a no-brainer. Also (and I may have this wrong) but, their web post somehow identified then as part of this organization. Again, that makes it different.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You are telling me what the law is, and again, I'm not really disputing your expertise in that area.

What I'm saying is that the law that allows a person to be fired in this type of situation is wrong, and an employer that actually does fire a person in this situation is wrong, and the reasoning behind the law as you've presented it erodes our rights.

What makes this situation "easy" for me is the fact that they were on a business trip paid for by their employer. That makes it a no-brainer.

It's a legal technicality that has no substantive impact on anything in the real world. Was the trip to the Tomb undertaken during working hours? Were the two idiots visiting the Tomb in some official company capacity? Not as far as we're aware. The fact that they were in DC on a business trips is meaningless. (Except as that all-important legal technicality. I get that.)

In other words, there is no real difference between the situation these two put themselves in and that my anti-same sex marriage waiter found himself in. You've pointed out that nobody is "entitled" to their job, and can legally be fired for any reason (except those that are illegal, of course.) Except it seems that the waiter IS entitled to his job, at least for the time being, and cannot be fired for lobbying against same sex marriage. These two idiots are similarly not "entitled" to their jobs, but they CAN be fired for their activity, even though it's equally unrelated to their job, simply because they undertook it during a business trip. The difference is mere geography.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"The company should be able to fire him for his personal beliefs, expressed in accordance with his Constitutional guarantee to be able to do so, outside of work? "

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to express your beliefs. It guarantees you the right to not have govt make a law abridging your ability to free speech. The Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not framed in absolute terms. They are framed in terms of what the govt can or can not do. Private citizens are not necessarily bound by the same restrictions. For instance, it is not illegal for you to punish your kids for use of foul language or for acting in a disrespectful manner to their parents, even though that is certainly an expression of their feelings and beliefs.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"The fuck? Not only did you find some picture of someone being a disrespectful dumbass, you then assumed they were liberal, assumed that all liberals think the same, then brought up a guy who raped a 13 year old to show it happens all the time? Grow the fuck up, idiot."

THANK YOU!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Looks like they are no longer employed

http://news.msn.com/...ng-photo-on-facebook

Quote:

You are telling me what the law is, and again, I'm not really disputing your expertise in that area.

What I'm saying is that the law that allows a person to be fired in this type of situation is wrong, and an employer that actually does fire a person in this situation is wrong, and the reasoning behind the law as you've presented it erodes our rights.

Why is it wrong? You have no right to your job. Being employed is a privilege, not a right. To continue to enjoy that privilege, you must adhere to certain terms. One of those terms is that if you make the employer look bad, you lose the privilege. Why is that wrong? Go back to my KKK rally example where the employee is wearing COMPANY shirt and is on a video that goes viral. This results in boycotts against COMPANY. Why should COMPANY not be allowed to do anything to the employee who caused this in the first place.

Quote:

What makes this situation "easy" for me is the fact that they were on a business trip paid for by their employer. That makes it a no-brainer.

It's a legal technicality that has no substantive impact on anything in the real world. Was the trip to the Tomb undertaken during working hours? Were the two idiots visiting the Tomb in some official company capacity? Not as far as we're aware. The fact that they were in DC on a business trips is meaningless. (Except as that all-important legal technicality. I get that.)

According to a couple reports I have read, Lindsey Stone posted the picture on her FaceBook page, along with other pictures showing her business trip to D.C. She identified her employer and the fact that she was on a business trip. By her own actions, she brought her employer into the controversy. She caused the employer to have to take action. So, this is a no-brainer. You make the company look bad, you don't get to work for the company.

Quote:

In other words, there is no real difference between the situation these two put themselves in and that my anti-same sex marriage waiter found himself in. You've pointed out that nobody is "entitled" to their job, and can legally be fired for any reason (except those that are illegal, of course.) Except it seems that the waiter IS entitled to his job, at least for the time being, and cannot be fired for lobbying against same sex marriage. These two idiots are similarly not "entitled" to their jobs, but they CAN be fired for their activity, even though it's equally unrelated to their job, simply because they undertook it during a business trip. The difference is mere geography.

No, there are more distinctions. As I indicated above, these two chose to post the picture on a public forum and chose to identify the reason for their trip to D.C. So, they chose to bring the employer into a controversy. That is not the same as your example.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to express your beliefs. It guarantees you the right to not have govt make a law abridging your ability to free speech.

I understand that, honest. That's why I didn't say these two idiots have had their First Amendment rights violated. I said that I don't think they should be fired for exercising their freedom of speech outside of work, on their own time, in a setting in which they acted as private citizens, not employees.

Freedom is pretty empty if people can't exercise without fear of losing their livelihoods. I think we really ought to examine the degree of control over our outside lives that we're willing to surrender to our employers, who, after all, only pay us to do a job. We might be protected from a totalitarian government, but that doesn't mean much if we're unprotected from a totalitarian employer.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Ok, so, let's take this example. EMPLOYEE works for COMPANY. During off-duty time, on EMPLOYEE's personal FaceBook page, EMPLOYEE makes racial comments, saying he "hates blacks" (but uses the n word). Employee then goes on to say COMPANY hates "n's" as well, which is why he loves working for COMPANY.

COMPANY has no right to fire EMPLOYEE?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

"We might be protected from a totalitarian government, but that doesn't mean much if we're unprotected from a totalitarian employer. "


Totalitarian implies that the entity in question has total control. Am employer doesn't fit the bill, in this country. Employees can quit if they don't like the way the employer treats them. Employers likewise can fire employees if they act against the interest of that employer. That's not totalitarianism. That's just good business. In this case, if the women had taken the photo, and kept it to themselves, and somehow the employer found out, I doubt they'd have been fired. But since they posted it to a very public social media service, and included the name of their employers and that they were on a business trip, they crossed out of private personal speech and into speech that could harm their employers. They did so thoughtlessly, and without regard to the impact it could have.


Nobody is taking away these women's right to free speech. They have not "surrendered" that right to their employer. But they don't have a right to work for that employer. And the employer is under no obligation to employ them. These women retain their right to free speech, and the employer retains the right to employ people they choose.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Why is it wrong? You have no right to your job. Being employed is a privilege, not a right. To continue to enjoy that privilege, you must adhere to certain terms.

See, this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I think that if one is hired to do a job, one has a right to expect to keep that job absent some job-related cause, or some economic reason. I don't think it's right to maintain that continuing to earn a living in a position that you're performing in is simply a privilege that can be revoked on a whim. (Which is somewhat of a legal fiction, anyway. We aren't talking about employees who were fired randomly, without cause, just because the employer can fire them. We are talking about people who were fired for a specific cause, and I don't think that cause has anything to do with their job, and I maintain that it's therefore none of the employer's business.)

One of those terms is that if you make the employer look bad, you lose the privilege.

Except that doesn't really seem to be the case. If so, I don't understand why my anti-same sex marriage waiter can't be fired. Isn't his job a privilege that can be revoked by his employer at any time, an entitlement to which he has no right? Further, hasn't his contribution to lobby for traditional marriage made his employer look bad? Tell me again why he can't be fired?

I understood your previous post on this to mean that he can't be fired because his cash contribution was not work related. And if so, I agree with that reasoning. His activity has nothing to do with his employer, and is none of his employer's business. I don't think the waiter should be fired because his expressed opinion is unpopular with some people, when that opinion has no connection to his job.

Likewise the two idiots at the Tomb, and likewise your KKK member, as long as he wasn't wearing a shirt that actually identifies him as an employer of his company during the rally. You've been tossing around a lot of justifications about how people can be fired for almost any reason or for no reason, but you seem to be hanging your case for justly firing these people on the grounds that their behavior actually was work related. And I reject that argument- the relation between their activity and their jobs is trivial, and no more significant than that of the waiter's.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think you are overly cavalier about the significance of a person's livelihood.

It is easy to say that the employee can just go get another job if he doesn't like his employer restricting his off the clock speech. But that's increasingly not the case, as more and more employers adopt this kind of mindset and seek to regulate the behavior of their employees while not at work.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes, this is the crux of our disagreement. You see a job as an entitlement. Legally, it is not. It is a privilege. From a practical standpoint, it is a privilege. Your employer owes you nothing more than payment for the actual work already performed.



In the case of these two women, they brought in the employer with the Facebook post. That is why the employer was bombarded by complaints.

Regarding the waiter - I never said he could not be fired. In theory, he could be fired for this. However, unless he did something to overtly draw negative attention to his employer, he likely would not be fired for such conduct. You seem to think there is some slippery slope here. However, in the real world, it doesn't happen that way.

Not exactly. It isn't that he "couldn't" be fired b/c it was not work related. Rather, it is that he "wouldn't" be fired for doing so. In theory, he could be fired for any reason or no reason at all, so long as it was not an illegal reason. It is highly unlikely that a court would see the case contribution as "protected activity," so, he could be fired. However, in the real world, it doesn't work that way. Remember, employers do not want negative attention. Firing someone for something like your example would draw negative attention. So, they don't do it.

Just to clarify -- if you are a public employee, in general, you can only be fired if your off-duty misconduct is somehow connected to your on duty position. In the private sector, in general, there is no such requirement. Understand that some states have state laws that alter these general principles.

Nope. Again, like I said, it isn't that they "couldn't" be fired, it is that they "wouldn't" be fired if there was no connection. What I said in this particular case is that, under these facts, it is a complete no-brainer for me b/c they were on a work trip.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Not being cavalier, just putting it into perspective against a totalitarian regime in which a persons only choice is to try to take his family and flee to another country, usually under threat of violence or death. Being expected to not make your company look bad on Facebook kind of pales in comparison.

Like it or not, the proliferation of widespread social media, and the inclination of people to put everything in their lives on those media sites means that stuff you used to be able to do and no one would notice, now becomes a national (or international) story overnight. 20 years ago, these women might have done the same thing, and they would have had the picture in a scrapbook somewhere. Now it's attached to their online profile, along with their place of employment, and the information that they were on a work trip. People have to be smarter. More and more employers are seeking to regulate the speech of their employees because that speech is having wider and wider impact on businesses through online postings.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Regarding the waiter - I never said he could not be fired. In theory, he could be fired for this. However, unless he did something to overtly draw negative attention to his employer, he likely would not be fired for such conduct.

It wasn't entirely hypothetical. Several such cases did occur in the wake of California's Prop 8 campaign. (I don't know if anyone was technically fired. Several people were pressured to "resign.")

Your employer owes you nothing more than payment for the actual work already performed.


Again, this is nothing more than a semantic ruse to justify employers regulating the off-duty behavior of their employees. In the real world, nobody is fired for no reason. The question should not be "do you have a right to this job, or any job?" but rather "does your boss have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do while you're not at work?"


It isn't that he "couldn't" be fired b/c it was not work related. Rather, it is that he "wouldn't" be fired for doing so.

I appreciate the clarification. As noted above, though, it isn't the case that he "wouldn't" be fired for doing so.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

just putting it into perspective against a totalitarian regime in which a persons only choice is to try to take his family and flee to another country, usually under threat of violence or death. Being expected to not make your company look bad on Facebook kind of pales in comparison.

I grant that one is more dramatic than the other, but the end results are not entirely dissimilar. "Totalitarian" refers to the amount of control exercises over someone's life- it need not be enforced by outright violence. If virtually all of a person's behavior can be regulated by threatening his ability to earn a living, put a roof over his head, and feed his family, I'd say that person is living under at least a near totalitarian regime. The fact that it isn't run by the government at gunpoint might make it seem warmer and fuzzier, but he certainly is not free in any meaningful sense.

More and more employers are seeking to regulate the speech of their employees because that speech is having wider and wider impact on businesses through online postings.

I wonder, at that, how much of an impact this actually had on the idiots' employer. It got the employer some attention, but has its ability to conduct business actually been impacted?

What if their employer had simply issued a statement similar to that issued by the Old Guard? Seems pretty simple to me.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

When I began working for the county way back when (South Carolina, a Right To Work state), I was required to sign an agreement that included, among several items, clauses that obligated me to seek approval from our director before taking other jobs, be they full or part time, and to avoid engaging in behavior in my free time that would--I forget the specific language--reflect poorly on the county. I asked what type of activity this entailed, and was given the standard reply: working in a strip joint, public drunkenness, and such. The primary function of the secondary employment clause was to prevent scheduling conflicts, but the prohibition on working in a strip club clearly crossed over into exerting control over what we did off duty, regardless of legality and how it would or would not impact our ability to do our jobs effectively. They simply did not want patients identifying their healthcare provider as the girl from the champagne room, and understandably so. We were aware of these restrictions (among many others) and how our free time was not truly ours, or free, but it was what we agreed to as a trade-off for the benefits of the position. Social media was just reaching ubiquitous status at the time of my departure, but I've heard this policy has reached to social media as well, for the reasons slowguy articulated; there is no separating the personal from the professional in that forum--at least, there's no guarantee that people will, or even can, and so employers are paying close attention and drafting policy to account for it.

I think it's entirely reasonable that agencies, be they public or private, control their brand in this fashion. My only stipulation is that it be made known at the start of employment, so that people don't have disciplinary action taken without forewarning.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

 
I think it's entirely reasonable that agencies, be they public or private, control their brand in this fashion.

And the massive degree of control that this gives employers over employees lives does not concern you? You don't think that our current law, as explained by JSA, has already eroded our freedoms as citizens, and will continue to do so?

People (not you, but lots of people) get all hyped up over the most trivial issues of political correctness. Someone says "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas," and there's outrage all over. Which is ridiculous.

When the choice, though, is to stifle your freedoms or lose your job, political correctness has become truly dangerous.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm certainly not unconcerned with it, but I think it's inevitable. No one is forcing people to use social media, or to post who they work for, or with, or photos of their coworkers, or every detail of their daily activity, in a way that is accessible to everyone on the planet, now and in perpetuity. Agencies are facing new threats from social media activity that did not exist previously, and I think a proportional response is reasonable--again, provided expectations are made clear in advance.

I disagree that this constitutes stifling one's freedoms. Freedoms have always been tied to consequence of action, and I don't see this much differently.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Yes, freedom has always been tied consequence, but there is a difference between a proportional, appropriate consequence, and a punitive action taken by an actor who really has no business in the equation. One should not have to choose between supporting oneself and expressing one's opinion as a private citizen in a free society. That's no kind of freedom at all.

You're wrong to think that this is merely a result of someone's voluntary activity on social media, too. I don't believe any of the Prop 8 supporters who were targeted were identified by their activity on social media.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Quote:

Regarding the waiter - I never said he could not be fired. In theory, he could be fired for this. However, unless he did something to overtly draw negative attention to his employer, he likely would not be fired for such conduct.

It wasn't entirely hypothetical. Several such cases did occur in the wake of California's Prop 8 campaign. (I don't know if anyone was technically fired. Several people were pressured to "resign.")

That could be, but, I bet those who were pressured to do so were quite vocal and there was some connection with their employer.



Your employer does not have the right to tell you what to do (or not do) during your off duty hours. But, if that conduct becomes public and is an issue for the employer, the employer has the right to terminate the employee.



Perhaps, but, given that you do not have a right to the job, there really isn't an issue.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I bet those who were pressured to do so were quite vocal and there was some connection with their employer.

No. Their contributions were public record. Same sex marriage proponents got a list of those who contributed to Prop 8, and targeted them.

Besides which, I say it doesn't matter. People have a right to be vocal about their political beliefs, whatever they are, on their own time. They should not face the prospect of losing their jobs for doing so, if we are going to continue to tell ourselves that we're a free society, composed of free people.

Your employer does not have the right to tell you what to do (or not do) during your off duty hours. But, if that conduct becomes public and is an issue for the employer, the employer has the right to terminate the employee.

Distinction without a difference. One might just as well say that your employer does not have the right to tell you what to do or not do during your work hours, but if you don't do what your employer wants, you can be fired. Which is just as technically true, and just as meaningless.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You are going to have to provide a citation because I do not believe it.



It isn't the same at all either in theory or, more importantly, in practice.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I was only focusing on social media as an example because of this case, and my personal experience with policy changes governing employees behavior on their own time. I understand that it reaches beyond this as well, but I also realize this isn't a new phenomenon; people have historically suffered consequences, both socially and economically, for their decisions to publicly engage in behavior that the Constitution protects. It's not always *right* that they do, but that doesn't make our society any less free. I'd say it makes our society less tolerant, and perhaps less ideal than if such actions never occurred, but I wouldn't call it less free, and, in fact, I'd say that to restrict the employers' ability to hire and fire at will would be to make our society less free.

The question is both practical and philosophical, and the answer depends on one's perspective. Did the Civil Rights Act, as it applies to private industry, make our society more free, or did it make it less free but more consistent with our values?



Apply the same reasoning to your voluntary association with the Church (I can hear your eyes rolling in your skull from here, but bear with me): to rephrase your earlier question, why should you have to choose between your Constitutionally protected right to fornicate and blaspheme, and your access to eternal salvation? The answer is, because that's the way it works. You can choose to associate with your Church/employer, and reap those benefits you desire, or you can terminate your association and find another Church/employer that suits your needs or desires more broadly. You are entirely free to do this, but of course you choose as you do, on the criteria of your preference, and you willingly accept the conditions it imposes on your life. You were highly critical of Sister Social Justice on a Bus, because she essentially wanted to bend Catholicism to her view of how things *should* be, rather than promote and live by the teachings of the Church. I think your criticism is justified and correct, by the way, and for the reasons, among others, I just described. If you don't like the conditions of your associations, you can either work internally to change them, or you can find alternative accommodations. Sister Social Justice (whatever her name is) needs to leave the Church and join a group that sees things her way--Unitarian Universalism would suit her worldview and ambitions very well, I suspect. Similarly, if you don't like working for a corporation that places severe restrictions on aspects of your public behavior, either work internally to change it, or find alternative accommodations.

This applies in all associations, universally--marriage, parenthood, civic group participation, etc. They all require that you modify your behavior in ways that limit your ability to do as you please so long as it's not in violation of law. You can complain that in a free society you should be free to associate with whichever women you choose, and to stay at the bar 'till 2 am every night, and that demands placed on you to meet their expectations are an infringement of freedom or liberty, but I don't think you'll garner much sympathy for your plight when those voluntary associations fall to ruin. I think the sticking point here is that you don't view employment in the same light--a voluntary, contractual association that benefits both parties. I'm hard pressed to see it any other way, ultimately (although I've said before and maintain today that the balance of power ultimately tilts toward the employer, although LIbertarians strenuously disagree with that assessment), and I think the vast majority of employers allow employees a wide berth and do not place onerous restrictions on their free time. Those that do are not likely to keep good employees for very long, so it's largely a self-limiting problem.

Mrs sphere is contractually prohibited from any and all public acts of political campaigning, in every imaginable iteration. Doing so can, and almost certainly would, result in termination. This is not an infringement on her freedom, because it serves to protect her employer from charges of political bias (and in her position this is vitally important), and because we moved halfway across the eastern seaboard, voluntarily leaving her former place of employment, for the benefits it would provide for our family. We were not coerced to do so in any sense of the word, and she is free to leave after she's met her contractual obligations, to work wherever and for whomever she chooses. I don't for a second consider us any less free because of her restrictions, and in reality, those benefits allowed us to support our family while I completed my medical training (an outcome that was not possible before this opportunity presented), which is allowing us to move to a better financial footing, and thus affording us greater ability to exercise our freedoms.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be better if we did retain total freedom without consequence in our down time, provided we don't run afoul of the law in ways that directly harm our employers, I'm just arguing that these voluntary associations and the conditions they require don't make us less free as a society in any meaningful sense.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W