sorry those arent analogues on any planet.
religion is a protected class you can't fire someone over expressing their religious views. come back and talk to me when you figure out what the law says on religious views.
more so religious views outside of the work place.
you evidently don't know half of what you think you do.
that or you only enforce the rights you agree with and to tell with all the other rights that people have if they disagree with you.
Another example where context is lacking, I most likely absolutely could be fired if I was a supervisor in the federal government, wrote a book concerning political views, and then on the clock gave it to my subordinates. That would quite possibly be a hatch act violation in that particular case.
I know, in a general sense, most businesses place a greater requirement on supervisors regarding actions towards subordinates than they do coworkers, as there is a natural suggestion of power there and an inherent potential for retaliation.
It seems you want to just pretend that the content of the writing doens't matter with your continual and non-stop attempt to reframe it simply as "a book". The reality is the content matters in certain situations. Political Positions and the federal government, as I pointed to above, is an example.
I've not suggested this guys firing was right or wrong. I honestly haven't looked at it deep enough to understand the full context and facts surrounding the case. However, I did know enough about it that the hypothetical you kept trying to suggest with your repeated statements of "co-workers" was an inaccurate one when trying to compare to this situation.
Why you decided to avoid my question and strawman me by responding as if I said he could or should be fired is beyond me...other than perhaps you simply not wanting to actually address what I said. My question wasn't whether or not this guy should've been fired. My question was regarding your attempted arguments which kept using a hypothetical that included a work relationship (co-workers, implying peers) that was significantly different than the situaiton at hand (boss and subordinates).
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I'm sorry, wrapping homophobia, bigotry, misogyny etc. in the blanket of religion doesn't mean you have the right to push it at the workplace. You can do whatever you want to in your private life but it's not meant for the workplace. The workplace is for working, not proselytizing.
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes