[KevinB]

With all due respect, pretty much everything you said in that lengthy post is wrong. :-)

[familyop]

Yes. I wrote too much too hastily. Sorry about the noise.

Here's my argument in short. The First Amendment presumes the right to freedom of speech by saying that Congress can’t legally reduce "the freedom of speech." There were quite a few written mentions of that intent before the Constitution was written.

But firing an employee is no violation of an employee's freedom of speech. We are not forced to buy anything from someone we disagree with. Fire the disrespectful players.

But left-leaning employees are often in fact being treated by legislators (many of them attorneys) and courts as though they have constitutional rights to keep their jobs and to take the revenues of men. The same practice is common in divorce law. That's because it is widely assumed that men are generating the revenues and are the most lucrative targets. Those who don't generate enough revenues are sometimes imprisoned for and with contempt.

On the issue of professional sports players, the fear might be that of lawsuits alleging racial discrimination. The players are wealthy and capable of hiring many of the most costly lawyers.

[I'm not an attorney. This is only a discussion of policies.]