1. He was not fired for his beliefs, he was fired for making his beliefs a workplace issue.
2. He was not arrested for stating his beliefs, thus his first amendment rights were not infringed.
I detest even more that it must still be said. People who believe that free speech has no exceptions would probably be surprised to learn about laws against libel and slander. But then, you'll notice how often that speaking out against [fill in undesirable demographic here] is protected by the first amendment, yet criticizing that person's belief is suddenly no longer free speech, but rather "infringing on that person's freedom of speech." Convenient that, no?You're right, you can't yell "fire" in a theater (I detest that overused phrase).
Sexual orientation is protected under the EEOC. But since you brought it up, if the Chief had handed out books condemning black people or Jews this thread would have ended on page three.But "hostile work environment" protection only extends to "protected classes". In other words, I could say knowing that my boss enjoys slaughtering baby sheep and cows results in an uncomfortable/hostile work environment for me, but I wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally with my HR department.
Honestly I don't know. The church seems at times to live by laws written in an entirely different country than the one I live in.Couldn't subordinates now technically make a case with HR that their manager attending or acting as an elder in a church that teaches the same things about the gay lifestyle that Cochran included in his book create a hostile/uncomfortable work environment for them?
*See that story that came out a bunch of years ago about a school teacher who made a pornography video on her own time, some parents found out about it (wonder how they did that?), and the teacher got fired.