But it's perfectly OK for your employer to "violate" your First Amendment rights at work. Employers do it all the time.
From 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, I'm required to work, not campaign for my favorite candidate. I can't stand in the lobby and bad-mouth the CEO. I can't "express myself" by wearing a swim suit to work.
The First Amendment is a restriction on the government, not my employer.
Finally, letting the guy go has nothing to do with "punishment", but with solving a serious, practical problem in a very direct way. If the employment of this guy is likely to result in increased vandalism and crime in my store, I have every right to find another employee.
If the roles were reversed, and the employee found that working for this particular employer exposed him to greater risk of assault, etc., it would be perfectly reasonable for him to quit and work somewhere else. Why shouldn't the employer have essentially the same options?
What if he were a black employee in the 1950s?
Some businesses were vandalized strictly at night for being “n***** lovers”.
Perhaps a gas station would refuse employment to a Jewish man, who may not discuss his politics at work but be a member of “and international Zionist conspiracy”?
Some of the 75% Hispanic customer base inquired as to a hat rumor had it he owned. They weren’t asking to find out where they could buy one like it. They were targeting him for discrimination.
No where in this is it referred to as a hate crime to shoot up the store.
[