[Young Scholar]

In Adler v Board of Education (1952) the Supreme Court ruled "You have a constitutional right to say and think as you will, but you have no constitutional right to work for the government." A few more recent cases have modified that traditional interpretation of the First Amendment, but none that would apply here.

I don't think it's good that Smith was fired either, but I won't go around falsely claiming the First Amendment protects him.

[Leatherneck_MT]

You depend on the SCOTUS to define the Constitution?

Can you not read for yourself?

The SCOTUS has been a travesty. Do you think that a municipality that wants your land has the absolute right to move in and take it over so they can increase their tax base by giving it to a land developer too?

The SCOTUS is wrong on this issue. I don't need some gaggle of maggot lawyers to tell me that.

The man was wrongfully terminated because he said something when he was off duy. He was not acting in an official capacity. If his first amendment rights are not protected, then neither are yours and mine and if we don't start pushing back on this issue and condemning these asshats who do this and running them out of office, then we will in fact lose our rights and our country in very short order.

Ehrlich is my enemy.

He made himself so by this act. I swore to uphold and defend that constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic.

He is a domestic one.

[foghornleghorn]

It is true that the first amendment does not protect speech other than political speech, and only against retaliation from government. Having said this, it still demonstrates that the mainstream cultural arbiters have their noses firmly entranched in the fannies of the homo lobby.