Addressing your first point about what is given to us by our Creator:
The broad terms “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” are further delineated and expanded upon in the Bill of Rights.
These rights deal with government and limit it.
Then the subsequent laws that are based on the Bill of Rights, deal with individuals, non government situations, employer-employee relations, and the like.
And the laws have their roots in God’s law; that was the background of the new nation’s Founders.
So it all is connected, —all— of those rights in the Bill of Rights, the laws that align with God’s, everything, is —inalienable— i.e. inseperable from the person.
As to your second point about not talking to the press or giving a speech that mentions the company, unless permission is granted:
If a company owner treats the employees fairly, does not break the law*, and does not give the employee any reason to go to the press complaining, then there is no problem on that score.
Same goes for giving a speech; if the company conducts its business in accordance with the law*, honors people’s God-given rights, and does not infringe upon them, then there would be no reason for the employee to go around giving speeches against the company.
*’law’ in the above two examples is taken to mean the law that is in accordance with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the legal codes that align with God’s law.
In the latter case of the legal codes, distinction had to be made concerning ‘alignment’, due to the recent twisting of the laws by the SCOTUS.
See this where I think we disagree. Our Freedom of speech, Right to bear arms, etc, can be taken from us legally by 2/3 vote of the states. They are referred to as the Bill of Rights, but they are amendments, and as such are at risk.
The 3 mentioned in the Declaration can’t be removed except by the one(God) who gave them to us.
That’s where I see the distinction between two.
I agree that the Constitution has at it’s root God’s law, beyond that I believe the founders took the 3 from the Declaration, and said let’s apply them to every day life.
You are also correct in stating that I have to run my company within the law, however even if I don’t there are remedies in place for that, and most result in the employee losing their job anyway (speaking as a small business owner).
The difference between that and what this cop did are vast.
The employee/employer agreement is a basic contract, written or verbal. I have terms, and the employee has terms. One of my terms is if you speak to the press you can’t use the company name without my permission. Imagine the opposite of what happened here, and the employee writes a letter to the editor espousing the joys of sex with animals, kids etc., and then signs it with the name of my company. I can’t imagine anyone having a problem with me firing the employee for that. Plain and simple he violated our agreement. I’m not restricting his free speech as he can that very second go to the nearest tv station and further explain his love of sheep. If he uses the name of my company at this time then I would address my grievance in civil court. However I have still not infringed upon his free speech rights except as they now violate slander statutes. At this point the court steps in with the remedy. He’s still free to preach sheep love, but not use my company name to promote the action.