By implication. If knowing that in each case, except maybe Gonzalez, the institutions do not admit to preventing an individual from teaching or being associated with something that they did not like, then you state the following" How is it unfair to prevent someone from teaching something the university does not want taught?; it is reasonable to draw the implication that the universities were lying about said motivator. So show me in every case that we are discussing that the institutions admit to preventing them from etc.
You're welcome. But I did not do that, I asked a question indicating that I drew an inference. Since you have no inside knowledge of these cases, your questions are entirely hypothetical and are red herring so you have no reason to apply any answer given to the situations under discussion. I have public comments and emails to back up my conclusions.
If the alleged victims have a legal case, I suppose they can pursue it, although I don’t see much of a case for someone wh never actually had a paying job.
My question is why conservatives are pissing and moaning about discrimination. I think the ability to discriminate based on job performance is a good thing. I don’t think the employee gets to decide what job performance is, and I don’t think a conservative would want to hang on to a job or volunteer position where they are not wanted.