> I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politic

> I did not, but I understand why some would want to read it as such, because it's an indefensible position to claim that one should be forced to join a politically active organization (or any outside organization for that matter) to become a public employee. You dodged the point above, but the governmental agencies themselves are politically active. So are very nearly all employers. [EDIT] my point being, why is aiding one politically-active organization (your employer) as a requirement for employment entirely fine, but being required to aid two is some abridgment of liberty? It's not like it's sprung on you after the fact. It's exactly as much a choice as aiding your employer's political agenda (i.e. you can not work there).