No that is absolutely not the case, companies today are responding to the Mob not their own self determination on the issue.
Which is what I and others have a problem with, not the a company on their own, of their own free will choose to fire someone but because the mob demanded it or their head
That way no one needs to make laws to enforce conformity. It's just enforced by social norms. It's the speech version of Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogomy" concept.
Granted even in this sardonic explanation, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole is supposed to go. Using your agency to protest <a bad act> is discouraged so we should use our agency to discourage the discouragement. But then we're just deciding that discouraging <a bad act> is itself a bad act. And so the whole thing is self-contradictory.
People claiming that people shouldn't be sacked for expressing certain views also claim their actions are motivated by the imperative of protecting freedom of conscience and individuals' essential liberty. People firing people for expressing those views are often openly stating the belief those views are 'incorrect' and that enforcement action must be taken against those with incorrect views.
Hence my contention that reducing the debate to libertarian vs authoritarian is unhelpful, particularly when it leads to the position that everyone not equally committed to both upholding universities' rights to censor speech and abolishing Civil Rights Acts is authoritarian with a capital A.