Not sure what you are saying. It is the first amendment that grants the right to fire people you don't agree with. So presumably not everyone agrees on what free speech is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...

I'm saying, free speech (an open exchange of ideas, tolerating views that are sincerely and respectfully made, or at least trying to charitably interpret those views, especially if you think they're wrong) should be something groups of people and organizations aspire to.

The fact many supporters of this guy's firing are treating these principles as technicalities is troubling. The first amendment is a starting point, not a loophole.

If you read your own link, you will learn that free speech and the first amendment are not the same thing.

The issue with "free speech" is that it is often used as a crutch for people to cling to their bad ideas. "How dare those people take issue with that ridiculous thing I just said! I am just exercising my right to free speech!"

So the "free speech only applies to the government" or the "free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences" argument is really just a reflex to "free speech" being often misused.

But in this case - I agree with you. The knee jerk calls for the guy to be fired without really hearing him out or engaging substantively on the issues like censorship and an affront the free exchange of ideas upon which democracy depends.

If you are talented enough Google will scout and hire you regardless of race or gender. Anything less is someone complaining about life not being fair.